The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Amendments to Standing Orders

Mr Speaker: Members will see from the Order Paper that 15 motions to amend Standing Orders have been tabled. Those relate to the Committee on Procedures’ report, ‘Review of the Legislative Process in the Northern Ireland Assembly’, which the House debated on 26 February 2002. Four motions are substantive; the others are consequential. However, as amendments to Standing Orders, all motions will require cross-community support if they are to pass.
I propose to conduct four debates on the four substantive motions. Members have not only the Order Paper and the Marshalled List of amendments for debates scheduled for later today, but a proposed grouping of the 15 motions into four sections. The first debate will take place on motions (a), (b) and (o); the second debate on motions (c), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l) and (m); the third debate on motions (d), (e), (f) and (g); and the fourth debate on motion (n).
Although the motions are not pieces of legislation but changes to Standing Orders, the Business Committee took the view that the business should be conducted as if the House were dealing with amendments to a Bill, as that is what the House is most familiar with. I shall call the first motion, and then we shall debate motions (a), (b) and (o). We shall then continue through the other debates as I have outlined. If that is reasonably clear, we can proceed.

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move:
In Standing Order 25(1)(a) line 2 delete "or Standing Order 72 provides" and insert "or Standing Orders provide".
The following motions stood in the Order Paper:
In Standing Order 25(1) line 12 and line 13 delete "Such decisions shall require cross-community support" and insert: "Such decisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) shall require cross-community support within the meaning of Section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
In Standing Order 40(3) delete all and insert:
"(3) Where, exceptionally, a Bill (other than a Budget Bill) is thought to require accelerated passage, which shall exclude any Committee Stage, the Member in charge of the Bill shall, before introduction of the Bill in the Assembly, explain to the appropriate Committee:
(a) the reason or reasons for accelerated passage;
(b) the consequences of accelerated passage not being granted; and, if appropriate,
(c) any steps he/she has taken to minimise the future use of the accelerated passage procedure.
(4) Before Second Stage the Member in charge of the Bill shall move a motion "That the …. Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure".
In moving the motion the Member shall explain to the Assembly:
(a) the reason or reasons for accelerated passage;
(b) the consequences of accelerated passage not being granted; and, if appropriate,
(c) any steps he/she has taken to minimise the future use of the accelerated passage procedure.
A motion under this Standing Order shall require cross-community support within the meaning of Section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998." — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. This first group of motions arises from the Committee on Procedures’ report on its review of the legislative process as debated by the Assembly on 26 February 2002. They will give effect to the recommendations contained in that report, which the Assembly has already endorsed. I covered the background to the recommendations at some length during that debate. Therefore, I do not intend to go over the arguments for those changes in detail.
The first group of motions relates to the recommendations of the Committee that the requirement for accelerated passage be reduced from leave of the House to cross-community support.
The substantive motion outlined at (o) in the Order Paper makes a change to Standing Order 40. Consequential motions are required to Standing Order 25, and those are detailed at (a) and (b) on the Order Paper. The consequential motions are technical amendments that simply make it clear that Standing Orders can make provision for decisions of the Assembly to be resolved by more than simple majority.
During the debate on 26 February, concern was expressed by the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development about potential abuse of the accelerated passage procedure. In its consideration of the comments expressed by Members during the debate, the Committee on Procedures acknowledged that concern. It, therefore, proposes that if a Minister wants accelerated passage for a Bill, his or her reason must first be explained to the Committee. I emphasise that that does not impose a requirement for a Committee’s consent; however, it does mean that the Committee is aware of the intention to seek accelerated passage and the reasons behind that intention. These motions insert into Standing Orders what we have been advised should happen as part of a Department’s pre-legislative consultation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 25(1)(a) line 2 delete "or Standing Order 72 provides" and insert "or Standing Orders provide."
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 25(1) line 12 and line 13 delete "Such decisions shall require cross-community support" and insert: "Such decisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) shall require cross-community support within the meaning of Section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move:
In Standing Order 29(d) delete all and insert:
"(d) Further Consideration Stage: an opportunity for Members to consider and vote on amendments proposed to the Bill."
The following motions stood in the Order Paper:
In Standing Order 33(14) line 1 and line 3 delete "Further". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
In Standing Order 33(15) line 1 delete "Further". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
In Standing Order 33(16) line 2 delete "Further". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
In Standing Order 33(16) line 3 delete "Final Stage" and insert "Further Consideration Stage". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
In Standing Order 33 after paragraph (16) insert:
"(17) If such a motion is agreed to after the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill has begun but before that stage has been completed, the Further Consideration Stage shall be adjourned until an Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements reports to the Assembly.
(18) On resuming an adjourned Further Consideration Stage, the Assembly may, instead of considering the remaining amendments in the order in which the relevant clauses or schedules stand in the Bill, on a motion moved by the Member in charge of the Bill decide to consider them in a different order, and to consider again and amend, provisions of the Bill which have already been agreed, and to consider new clauses and schedules even if the time for considering them has passed.
(19) If such a motion is agreed to after the end of the Further Consideration Stage of a Bill, no date shall be determined for the Final Stage of the Bill until an Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements reports to the Assembly." — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
In Standing Order 35 delete all and insert:
"35. PUBLIC BILLS: FURTHER CONSIDERATION STAGE
(1) Any amendments proposed to be made to a Bill at Further Consideration Stage shall be deposited with the Clerk in time for inclusion on a Notice Paper circulated on a day before the day appointed for the Further Consideration Stage, and shall be arranged in the order in which the Bill is to be considered; provided, however, that at the discretion of the Speaker, amendments may be moved in very exceptional circumstances without such notice.
(2) During proceedings at Further Consideration Stage, debate and vote shall be confined to those amendments which have been selected. The amendments shall be considered in the order in which the relevant clauses or schedules stand in the Bill.
(3) Any amendments selected which relate to the long title shall be considered after those relating to the clauses and schedules of the Bill.
(4) Members may speak more than once in debate during the Further Consideration Stage.
(5) At the conclusion of the debate on the Further Consideration Stage the Bill shall stand referred to the Speaker." — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. This group of motions deals with Further Consideration Stage. The substantive motion is outlined at (m) in the Order Paper. During our review it became evident that, although it was important that Members had a second opportunity to amend a Bill, the present procedure for the Further Consideration Stage as a complete re-run of the Consideration Stage should be refined to avoid Members being asked to vote again on clauses or schedules that may have already been agreed in the previous week.
The proposed amendment to Standing Order 35 will have the effect of focusing Further Consideration Stage on amendments proposed. Therefore, the Assembly will not be asked to vote to let a clause or schedule stand part of a Bill. Instead, in future, debate and votes at Further Consideration Stage will be only on amendments selected. That is in keeping with the practice in other places.
Seven amendments arise from this proposed change. The substantive motion at (c) is to amend Standing Order 29(d) to make the definition of Further Consideration Stage consistent with the more focused purpose now proposed.
The six consequential motions that are detailed at (h), (i), (j), (k), (l) and (m) are technical and relate to Standing Order 33, which deals with the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on conformity with equality requirements. Those amendments are necessary because they facilitate the interruption of Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage should a motion be agreed to for the appointment of such a Committee after either of those stages has begun.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 29(d) delete all and insert:
"(d) Further Consideration Stage: an opportunity for Members to consider and vote on amendments proposed to the Bill."

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move:
In Standing Order 31(3) line 3 delete "calendar days" and insert "working days".
The following motions stood in the Order Paper:
In Standing Order 31(5) line 1 delete "of thirty days". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
In Standing Order 33(5) line 8 after "thirty" insert "working". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
In Standing Order 33(7) line 7 after "thirty" insert "working". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
This group of motions deals with the extension of Committee Stage. The substantive motion is at (d), and (e), (f) and (g) are consequential amendments. A key recommendation in the Committee’s report was that Committee Stage should be lengthened from its current 30-day calendar limit. Committees have complained that 30 calendar days do not give them enough time to scrutinise Bills. Indeed, our research has shown that to be true, because the average length of time taken for Committee Stage is nine weeks. As I said during the debate on the Committee’s report on 26 February, the Committee is confident that if the Executive pick up on the Committee’s recommendation that draft Bills should be submitted to Committees as part of the pre-legislative consultation, that nine-week average will be reduced. As such, the Committee believes that it is more appropriate to lengthen Committee Stage from 30 calendar days to 30 working days, which will give Committees six weeks. It is therefore proposed to amend Standing Order 31(3) accordingly. Consequential amendments are required to Standing Orders 31(5), 33(5) and 33(7), which will clarify that Committee Stage will now be 30 working days instead of 30 calendar days.
As I said in the previous debate, the change has been introduced to make our procedures more efficient. However, if the change, like the others tabled, does not work, the Committee will revisit the issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 31(3) line 3 delete "calendar days" and insert "working days".
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 31(5) line 1 delete "of thirty days". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 33(5) line 8 after "thirty" insert "working". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 33(7) line 7 after "thirty" insert "working". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 33(14) line 1 and line 3 delete "Further". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 33(15) line 1 delete "Further". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 33(16) line 2 delete "Further". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 33(16) line 3 delete "Final Stage" and insert "Further Consideration Stage". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 33 after paragraph (16) insert:
"(17) If such a motion is agreed to after the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill has begun but before that stage has been completed, the Further Consideration Stage shall be adjourned until an Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements reports to the Assembly.
(18) On resuming an adjourned Further Consideration Stage, the Assembly may, instead of considering the remaining amendments in the order in which the relevant clauses or schedules stand in the Bill, on a motion moved by the Member in charge of the Bill decide to consider them in a different order, and to consider again and amend, provisions of the Bill which have already been agreed, and to consider new clauses and schedules even if the time for considering them has passed.
(19) If such a motion is agreed to after the end of the Further Consideration Stage of a Bill, no date shall be determined for the Final Stage of the Bill until an Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements reports to the Assembly." — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 35 delete all and insert:
"35. PUBLIC BILLS: FURTHER CONSIDERATION STAGE
(1) Any amendments proposed to be made to a Bill at Further Consideration Stage shall be deposited with the Clerk in time for inclusion on a Notice Paper circulated on a day before the day appointed for the Further Consideration Stage, and shall be arranged in the order in which the Bill is to be considered; provided, however, that at the discretion of the Speaker, amendments may be moved in very exceptional circumstances without such notice.
(2) During proceedings at Further Consideration Stage, debate and vote shall be confined to those amendments which have been selected. The amendments shall be considered in the order in which the relevant clauses or schedules stand in the Bill.
(3) Any amendments selected which relate to the long title shall be considered after those relating to the clauses and schedules of the Bill.
(4) Members may speak more than once in debate during the Further Consideration Stage.
(5) At the conclusion of the debate on the Further Consideration Stage the Bill shall stand referred to the Speaker." — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move:
In Standing Order 40(1) delete all and insert:
"(1) There shall be a minimum interval of five working days between each stage of a Bill, save in the following cases:
(a) between Second Stage and Committee Stage; and
(b) where a Bill is subject to the accelerated passage procedure in accordance with paragraph (2) or (4)."
This amendment would remove the five-day period required between the Second Stage and the Committee Stage. When a Bill passes its Second Stage and is referred to a Committee, the Committee cannot commence its consideration until five days have elapsed. That reduces the 30-day period that the Committee has to consider the Bill and report on it. As I said earlier, Committees believe that the time allocated to the Committee Stage is too short. The amendment would give Committees an additional five days. The five-day rule would be removed only between the Second Stage and the Committee Stage. It would remain in place between the other stages of the legislative process.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 40(1) delete all and insert:
"(1) There shall be a minimum interval of five working days between each stage of a Bill, save in the following cases:
(a) between Second Stage and Committee Stage; and
(b) where a Bill is subject to the accelerated passage procedure in accordance with paragraph (2) or (4)."
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 40(3) delete all and insert:
"(3) Where, exceptionally, a Bill (other than a Budget Bill) is thought to require accelerated passage, which shall exclude any Committee Stage, the Member in charge of the Bill shall, before introduction of the Bill in the Assembly, explain to the appropriate Committee:
(a) the reason or reasons for accelerated passage;
(b) the consequences of accelerated passage not being granted; and, if appropriate,
(c) any steps he/she has taken to minimise the future use of the accelerated passage procedure.
(4) Before Second Stage the Member in charge of the Bill shall move a motion "That the …. Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure".
In moving the motion the Member shall explain to the Assembly:
(a) the reason or reasons for accelerated passage;
(b) the consequences of accelerated passage not being granted; and, if appropriate,
(c) any steps he/she has taken to minimise the future use if the accelerated passage procedure.
A motion under this Standing Order shall require cross-community support within the meaning of Section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998." — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]

"Friends of Hospitals"

Mr Speaker: Amendments to this motion and the next motion have been proposed. Both motions are time-limited; therefore, I ask the proposers to limit themselves to around seven minutes and those who are speaking — whether to amendments or to the motion — to around five minutes. There will then be the opportunity for the Minister to sum up, and for both the proposer of the amendment and the proposer of the motion to make a winding-up speech.

Rev Robert Coulter: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls upon the Minister and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to set up urgently a separate funding network for the provision of matching funds for items and/or projects identified by local groups commonly known as "Friends of Hospitals".
I tabled this motion because we have heard so much recently about the funding problems faced by the Health Service. Looking at the current position of the Health Service takes me back many years to a time when the community in Ballymena became concerned about the high level of cardiac problems in the area.
Several of us got together and decided that something had to be done to assist the local hospital and, in particular, the specialist whose wonderful cardiac research was being inhibited by a lack of funds and equipment. We met the business community, and in the course of a few years a tremendous amount of money was collected and specialist equipment was installed in the hospital. Great work was done in the Waveney Hospital in Ballymena, and the effort was such that it became the pattern for hospitals, not only throughout Northern Ireland but across the UK.
The idea came to me some time ago as a result of hospital visits. Staff were saying that they had problems with the provision of capital equipment, the lack of space and the funding of nurses and other staff. I began to think about the voluntary element of the Health Service. Volunteers have been a feature of health provision since the beginning of healthcare. Florence Nightingale, the lady with the lamp who nursed the sick and wounded of the Crimean war in the 1850s, and who is widely credited with the foundation of the modern nursing service, was a volunteer. The concept of volunteers in the hospital service is not a new tradition, but a long and honourable one. It has its roots in the Christian philanthropy of the industrial revolution during a pre-welfare age, when the only provision was voluntary. It is interesting that Bishop Maddox of Worcester is credited with being the founder of the movement in 1746.
When the National Health Service began in 1948, the then Health Secretary, the formidable Aneurin Bevan, spelt out the role of volunteer workers in a welfare age. His words are still relevant today. He said that personal and voluntary work in hospitals would always be needed, and here is the punchline:
"to feel where the foot pinches and apply relief."
The National League of Hospital Friends was formed by 49 representatives from 40 hospital leagues. It later became the National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends. In 1998, to reflect the growing importance of its work in the community, the title was changed again to the National Association of Hospital and Community Friends. It has 804 affiliated groups. Voluntary work is a thriving tradition and a significant element of Health Service provision. The National Association of Hospital and Community Friends conducted its most recent survey in 1999. It shows that leagues of hospital and community friends had 36,000 members who actively and voluntarily contributed some eight million hours of work a year to the National Health Service. However, what intrigued me most was that the survey also found that the leagues donate some £36 million a year to NHS hospitals.
I could go on speaking about such statistics, but I came across one statement that brought the point home to me. Neil Hidgely, a 22-year-old volunteer from Reading, said that the youthful "Friends of Hospitals" in Reading had many volunteers in their teenage years or in their twenties. His group had presented a chair to one of the hospitals. He said:
"Seeing the nurses and the people being really thankful because they had been given a chair made me feel angry, but it also made me feel good because I was making a difference."
The "Friends of Hospitals" in Northern Ireland — those little groups that look on the local hospital as their hospital — are quite willing, as my contact with them has proved, to play their part in assisting the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to achieve what could not otherwise be achieved because of limited funding.
It would give the community a sense of belonging. In other words, it would be the community’s hospital, and people, having received healing, help and health through the work of their hospital, could give something back to it. It would reduce departmental spending. If the Department were to match pound for pound the amounts raised by the community groups — the "Friends of Hospitals" — expenditure would be reduced. That would also foster a team effort in the community that would bring everyone together.
I must reject the amendment, especially the restrictions that would be placed by the wording in the final line, which says:
"the Programme for Government and Priorities for Action."
I want the community to be free, in consultation with its local hospital board, to decide on the priorities that can be met through its contributions.

Mr Speaker: I have received one amendment to the motion. It is published on the Marshalled List of amendments in the name of Ms Sue Ramsey and Mr John Kelly.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.
I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "to" and insert
"provide matching funds for items and/or projects identified by local groups commonly known as ‘Friends of Hospitals’ where these fit in with the Programme for Government and Priorities for Action."
In moving the amendment, I wish to pay tribute to "Friends of Hospitals" and congratulate them on the immense contribution that they have made to hospital care. The amendment does not seek in any way to detract from the very good work that they have done. Rather, it seeks to broaden the scope of that work and to ensure that social need is met. We need to avoid a situation in which the rich would become healthier and the poor would become sicker. We need to have an equitable distribution of the funds that are available to the Department, and that is why we have moved the amendment. We do not seek in any way to diminish, demean or dismiss the work done by the charitable organisations.
There will always be room for the charitable provision of extra items and projects, but it is essential that charities should not be called upon to provide core funding. The Health Service should have sufficient funds to meet its obligations. We could see a situation arising in which the Government would be quite happy to see charitable organisations carrying out the functions for which they should be responsible. They might not provide the money for health that they should do because charitable organisations were trying to provide it.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
Targeting social need is important. The current situation requires much greater funding than is provided under the Barnett formula, which needs to be strongly opposed by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Given the lack of resources for the Health Service, it is important that the resources that we do have, including those that come from the charitable sector’s sterling efforts, are used as fairly and efficiently as possible.
That is why, at Executive level, the Programme for Government is agreed and why, at departmental level, priorities for action are drawn up. Those are used carefully to identify the greatest needs and to allocate resources accordingly. If we abandon the Programme for Government and the priorities for action, we abandon the possibility of co-ordinating services. Moreover, we abandon the chance to assess the appropriateness of the use of public money, and we abandon safeguards against the possibility of a needless duplication of services. Most dangerously of all, however, we abandon the system by which the equity of resource allocation is ensured.
If the motion were to become departmental policy, the communities that could raise the most charitable money would get the most money from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is not hard to imagine that those communities would be the richest ones. Therefore we would have a situation that would make a mockery of the Department of Health’s campaign to end inequalities in health provision. As I said in my opening remarks, the rich would become healthier and the poor would become sicker.
Having said that, I commend Rev Robert Coulter for tabling the motion and congratulate the "Friends of Hospitals" on the immense contribution that they have made to hospital care. However, these are the small dangers — maybe great dangers — that we envisage in the adoption of this motion. I support the amendment.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I stress that I am speaking on this matter as an Assembly Member, and not on behalf of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
I welcome the opportunity that this motion gives us to speak on the involvement of voluntary groups with the Health Service, and Colleagues will agree that support from local groups such as "Friends of Hospitals" is to be welcomed. Members are only too aware that severe budgetary constraints on the Health Service have meant that it has not always been possible to provide better facilities and more comfortable surroundings through public funds. Voluntary fund-raising undoubtedly helps, creating a sense of ownership of the public services.
Although I welcome the endeavour and enterprise of community groups in raising funds for local projects, I strike a cautionary note about making a commitment to match public resources with a carte blanche. Substantial capital investment in hospital equipment, such as MRI scanners, can bring with it heavy recurrent running costs, which need to be factored into future budgets. We have to bear in mind that investment in new technology will be accompanied by the administrative and staffing costs of the nurses and doctors who man it. The Health Committee’s two inquiries into children’s residential care and cancer services both strongly highlighted the importance of the voluntary and community sectors, working collaboratively with the Department, the boards, and the trusts to address priorities in the Health Service.
There is clearly a need for substantial fund-raising activity to improve the comfort of patients. However, that work has to be co-ordinated closely with the work and objectives of the Department in order to fully optimise the benefits for everybody in the region.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I agree with the spirit of the motion. However, the proposed amendment fits in with our Programme for Government and priority for action, and, therefore, my party will be supporting the amendment.
In too many instances, the amount of money needed far exceeds that which "Friends of Hospitals" can raise. However, without that money hospitals would be unable to cope with the demand for sophisticated and up-to-date equipment. I worked in Altnagelvin Hospital from 1961. As everyone is aware, it was the first hospital to be built in post-war Britain. The fact that it took almost 11 years from planning through to construction and the commissioning stage meant that equipment quickly became obsolete — not by the design, but by technology.
At that time there were four acute hospitals in the Derry, Limavady, and Strabane area, plus two psychiatric hospitals, Stradreagh and Gransha, each with a group that raised funds. We had Friends of Roe Valley, St Columbs, Stradreagh, Gransha, Strabane, and Waterside. Altnagelvin replaced all four acute hospitals, and currently Friends of Altnagelvin raises valuable funds through flag days, cake sales, the sale of Christmas cards, and other activities. They raise around £10,000, which, although invaluable, is generally spread quite thinly. Having it doubled would help.
Over the years these groups have bought some invaluable equipment, as have other groups that have raised funds specifically for areas such as cardiac services, neonatology or pain relief clinics. However, other funding priorities have seen donations dwindle, as people try their best to support other charities. For example, in my area, the Foyle Hospice for the terminally ill and relatives’ respite care, Macmillan Cancer Relief and various cancer charities would find it difficult to cope without that community support.
I will give a few examples. In the north-west edition of last night’s ‘Belfast Telegraph’, there were appeals for the sensory impaired and a children’s cancer unit, which has currently raised £47,000. A chain walk across both bridges in Derry has been organised for the weekend. It is hoped that 3,000 people will take part in the event to raise a further £3,000 for the children’s cancer unit. Money is also being raised for a 10-month-old child who was born without a brain stem. Children from the Cathedral Youth Club in the Fountain raised money, through a sponsored walk, to give him an easier lifestyle. We also had an appeal for Help the Aged. These charities are well worth supporting, and any extra funding would benefit them.
Recently, the wife of one of my friends died. She was treated in the Mid-Ulster Hospital. Unfortunately, the time from the diagnosis until her death was short. My friend wished to do something to help the hospital. I can give examples of some of the equipment that the hospital said that it needed urgently: two Colleague intravenous infusion pumps, each costing £1,600; a critical blood pressure monitor, which costs £2,000; an infant resuscitator costing £9,000; a foetal monitor, which costs £5,000; a sofa for the midwives’ restroom at £850; an electric couch for a treatment room at £810; and a new incubator for the children’s unit at £15,000. In total, almost £36,000 was raised, which for a small community was an excellent response to an appeal that lasted only four months. It is obvious that such people give much more to the community and deserve our thanks. Anything that improves funding for vital services is needed.
There was a fire at Altnagelvin Hospital last night, and 60 elderly patients, including stroke victims, had to be evacuated from the geriatric unit. Thanks to the excellent care and extra service that was provided by the hospital, the Fire Service and the ambulance crew, all the patients were evacuated safely to other parts of the hospital. I commend not only the staff there, but those who returned during their off-duty time to ensure that the elderly were not left in a more traumatic condition. As we know, it is difficult for an elderly person to be moved to unfamiliar surroundings. For that reason, all those members of staff deserve our thanks.
Last month, the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety visited Altnagelvin Hospital and saw the stroke unit. We know how difficult it is to move stroke patients, and they too were safely moved out during the fire. We support the spirit of the motion because all aspects of the Health Service would benefit. However, the amendment keeps any action in closer line with the Programme for Government and the priorities for action; therefore, the SDLP will be supporting the amendment.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Caithfidh mé mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Oirmhinneach Robert Coulter agus leis an Uasal McFarland as an díospóireacht thábhachtach seo a thabhairt anuas ar an chomaoin a bhfuil muid fúithi ag na daoine sin a oibríonn gan scíth ar son othair ospidéil agus daoine leochaileacha eile.
D’éist mé go cúramach lena moladh gur chóir dúinn níos mó úsáid a bhaint as an earnáil dheonach lenár seirbhísí a fhorbairt, agus is maith a thuigim a smaointe.
Tugann díospóireacht an lae inniu deis dúinn machnamh a dhéanamh ar an ról fíorthábhachtach atá ag an phobal ag forbairt agus ag coinneáil na gcaighdeán is airde cúraim inár n-ospidéil agus ar fud na seirbhíse.
I thank Rev Robert Coulter and Mr McFarland for stimulating this important debate on the debt that we owe to those in the voluntary sector who work so tirelessly in the interests of hospital patients and others. I also endorse Annie Courtney’s support for the staff who coped magnificently with safely evacuating the elderly from Altnagelvin Hospital last night. It is at such times when the support of the local community and "Friends of Hospitals" is welcomed.
I appreciate the suggestion by Rev Robert Coulter that we should make greater use of the voluntary sector in developing our services. Today’s debate provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the enormously important role of the community in developing and maintaining the highest standards of care in our hospitals and throughout the service. That recognition was expressed by all Members in the debate, and I welcome that.
The Rev Robert Coulter highlighted the noble tradition of personal and voluntary endeavours in aiding our hospital services. There has been a long history of voluntary sector involvement in the development of hospitals and many other services here. Some of our hospitals were established by local communities through public subscription. Others have been supported through the years by generations of local people who have voluntarily given up their time and money. The new wing at the Mater Hospital was made possible by the efforts and dedication of the local community, and I was delighted to visit it recently. Other Members have spoken of similar visits that they have made to hospitals in their areas.
Voluntary organisations and community groups play a vital role in representing their communities. Those groups often draw their membership from individuals who have direct experience of illness, either personally or through someone close to them, and they may want to give something back to their community. They contribute in many different ways. I pay tribute to all those communities and individuals for their dedication, the commitment of their time and energy and the vital role that they play in the development of our services. They are part of our caring society, and they enrich it.
I also want to pay tribute to the support that "Friends of Hospitals" have given to our trusts. Over the years their contributions have ranged from the provision of support for training to the purchase of much-needed specialist equipment. Given the current funding pressures on our services, and the history of underfunding, their efforts are doubly valued.
I recognise and appreciate the intentions behind the motion. The excellent work and support of the "Friends of Hospitals" are valued by the service, and it is important that their work continues to complement and augment existing services. Therefore, to be of maximum benefit, it is essential that we build on the Health Service’s existing close working relationship with voluntary trusts, societies and the voluntary sector to ensure that such input generates the best return in terms of improvements to patient care and treatment.
It is vital that that collaboration take place to ensure that projects complement and contribute to public service priorities. I need hardly add that if proposals generate a recurring commitment, they must be factored into our spending plans, otherwise they risk skewing resources from priority areas. It is important, therefore, that each proposal be looked at on its merits and that we target support to accord with our overall priorities. Consequently, a separate funding network would not be in the best interests of our service. Indeed, any blanket arrangement for separate funding could divert vital resources from key priorities. That would place greater pressure on our front line services, rather than improve services, and, as John Kelly said, it might also adversely impact on important programmes such as new targeting social need and the equality agenda, which aim to provide care for all our people on an equitable basis.
Although the proposed plan is not the optimum choice at this time, there are real opportunities to consider individual proposals case-by-case. There are many examples where that has worked well, and important projects have been taken forward successfully in partnership. Trusts must listen to the communities that they serve when developing their priorities, and, where a given proposal complements the overall strategic aim, an appropriate business case can be jointly developed to examine the viability of a project, while identifying its benefits and its full capital and revenue implications.
Therefore, our best way forward is to be able to consider proposals case-by-case, with the closest possible linkage between the statutory sector and the voluntary and charitable trusts, and the building of a business case with local trusts to ensure that the tremendous voluntary efforts are advancing the priorities that we have agreed.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Rev Robert Coulter and Mr McFarland for tabling the motion. Although I agree with the sentiment and the thinking behind it, support for the motion will cause concerns, which several Members highlighted. Agreeing the motion would result in affluent areas such as parts of north Down and Ballymena, which can raise about £100,000, having that amount matched by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Areas such as Falls Road, Shankill Road, and parts of Derry and Tyrone, which might be able to raise only about £10,000, would be entitled to have only that amount matched by the Department. That gives me concern, given that we have priorities for action, a Programme for Government and targeting social needs.
With that in mind, John Kelly and I have tabled an amendment that covers many of the concerns that other Members raised. I thank and commend groups such as "Friends of Hospitals" for their hard work, commitment and dedication in raising much-needed finances for local hospitals. I am sure that without their work, some services would be worse off. The amendment is based on reality. Although a group in north Down could raise £100,000 for an MRI scanner, that might not be a priority for the people there. The Department’s money would be tied up because it would be duty-bound to match that £100,000. That goes to the core of the matter.
I agree with Tommy Gallagher, who added a note of concern to the original motion. Fund-raising must be carried out in conjunction with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, which has produced priorities for action. Those priorities are supported by the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, which has a part to play also.
I do not agree with Rev Robert Coulter’s contention that the amendment restricts people’s ability to raise money; it does not do that. We should be thankful that people are raising money. The amendment is designed to ensure that the money will go to the heart of the problem, targeting the established priorities and problems of the community.
I agree with the Minister’s assertion that community groups and voluntary organisations have an important part to play in the Health Service. However, trusts must listen to the communities that they serve. That ties in with the priorities for action and the Programme for Government, and it is upon that reality that John Kelly and I have based our amendment.
The fundamental issue of the motion and the amendment is that the Health Service has been seriously underfunded for many years. I welcome yesterday’s commitment by Dr Farren to provide more funding for health. The Executive have said that health is a priority. My concern, however, is that the additional money is not enough. It is a welcome start, but we need to get to the core of the problem: if we want changes in the Health Service, we must address underfunding.
I ask Members to support the amendment. Although we cannot prevent people from raising money in good faith, we must not allow those who are unable to raise similar amounts to be discriminated against. The rich will get healthier and the poor will get sicker. We need to ensure that everyone in society has the opportunity to become healthier. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Tom Hamilton: First, I welcome the Minister’s addressing the problem, and I thank her for acknowledging the voluntary sector’s vital role in assisting the Health Service and hospitals and helping out sometimes, when the Department cannot find appropriate funds. I thank her for acknowledging the work of "Friends of Hospitals" and for her commitment to continue developing relationships with such groups.
I shall be brief. Mr Gallagher spoke about the contribution of voluntary groups and the vital role of "Friends of Hospitals", with their ability to provide equipment and services that the Department may not always be able to fund. He talked about the need to work with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety — it has never been the intention of "Friends of Hospitals" to work without full consultation with, and in conjunction with, the Department. Rev Robert Coulter’s motion covers that point.
Mrs Courtney mentioned the number of hospitals in her constituency that, at different times, have experienced difficulties with the provision of equipment and services. She too acknowledged the vital role that organisations such as "Friends of Hospitals" provide in meeting the needs of the area that she represents.
Rev Robert Coulter has given the reasons why the Ulster Unionist Party cannot support the amendment. We would like "Friends of Hospitals" to be able to operate with total freedom to meet the needs of the hospitals that they represent, and, in collecting for their hospital, contribute to the needs of that hospital and help it to develop the services required in their area.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tom Hamilton: No. Therefore, we urge Members to reject the amendment, because it does not provide fully for that. This has been a timely debate, and it is a worthy motion. The proposer highlighted its success in other parts of the UK. The Department should consider seriously the motion. I, therefore, urge Members to reject the amendment and support the motion.
Question put, 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 28; Noes 36.
Ayes
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, David Ervine, Sean Farren, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Alasdair McDonnell, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.
Noes
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, George Savage, David Trimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls upon the Minister and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to set up urgently a separate funding network for the provision of matching funds for items and/or projects identified by local groups commonly known as "Friends of Hospitals".

Screening System for Early Diagnosis of Autism

Mr Joe Byrne: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to introduce a screening system for all pre-school children to assist in the early diagnosis of autism and to make adequate provision for the needs of autistic children.
In the past year, the plight of autistic children and their parents has been brought into sharp focus through events that attracted the attention of the media. In Britain, the fears surrounding a possible link between autism and the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination reopened issues relating to the causes of autism, provoking considerable controversy and disagreement among healthcare professionals and Government Ministers. In the Republic, the Supreme Court decision in the Sinott case, and the publication of a special task force report on autism, raised public awareness of the provision of educational services for autistic children. In recent weeks, the announcement by Ministers McGuinness and Woods of the first all-Ireland centre of excellence for autism education marked a step in the right direction and brought a long overdue recognition of the increasing level of concern about autism and autistic spectrum disorders on the island of Ireland.
The purpose of the motion and the subsequent debate is neither to come to conclusions on the causes of autism, nor is it to agree on a single approach to the education of children with autism. The purpose of the debate is to increase Members’ and Ministers’ awareness of autism and to agree on what all parents and professionals who work in the field of autism already know: the earlier that formal diagnosis is made of children who suffer from autism, the earlier effective educational methods can be employed to ensure those children have the opportunity to lead normal lives.
Our Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and our Department of Education have responsibility for the diagnosis of autism and appropriate interventions, such as speech and language therapy. However, owing to the mix of Departments and professionals involved, there has been an ad-hoc development of autistic services in Northern Ireland. Voluntary organisations such as Parents’ Education as Autism Therapists (PEAT) and Parents and Professionals & Autism (PAPA) have been left to bear the brunt of promoting the needs of autistic children and their carers.
An important piece of recent research, which represented a major step forward, was the Northern Ireland scoping research into the diagnosis of autism. Although advances were made in the 1990s in the early diagnosis of autism compared with the situation in the 1980s, the report’s recommendations were not fully implemented at trust and health board level. Today, individual trusts have different referral paths, and there is a wide range of differences between the level of services offered by the North’s health trusts and boards. Only the Down Lisburn Trust, the Homefirst Community Trust, and Newry and Mourne Trust offer formal diagnosis services. They have been innovative and proactive with their respective health boards. Other trusts have lagged behind. Some are even in denial and refuse to accept the reality of the illness, or disability.
It is generally recognised that the early diagnosis of autism, which leads to early treatment and intervention, can have huge benefits and make a significant difference to the quality of life for autistic children and their parents.
A major piece of work is currently being conducted by a task force that consists of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department of Education and voluntary groups. It is essential that its report contain proposals from the Department of Health recommending the introduction of a screening programme for all pre-school children. That is vital — according to the National Initiative for Autism: Screening and Assessment (NIASA), almost 50% of children are not diagnosed as autistic until they are 16 years old. Many parents and children in Northern Ireland are living with the consequences of autism and a failure to diagnose their children’s illness at an early stage; some of those parents are here today.
I shall elaborate on the nature of this illness, the effect that it has on children and their parents and why early diagnosis and intervention is vital to its treatment. Autism is an illness of which I was aware, but, like many, I never appreciated fully the effect that it has on children and their families until a mother in my constituency contacted me to express her concerns about her child, who has not yet been formally diagnosed as suffering from autism. She also expressed her fears about the level of education services available. Her child was born healthy, without complications and with no history of serious illness in the family. After 19 months, the parents became increasingly concerned that their child was not developing normal communication and social skills. Despite the fact that two years have elapsed since their concerns surfaced, their child has not yet been formally diagnosed as suffering from autism, even though the child is displaying all the symptoms of the illness and is approaching school age. The mother was told authoritatively in a private consultation that her child was autistic, but the health authorities have not yet recognised that.
The symptoms of autism include a difficulty in acquiring, using and understanding speech, and using other forms of communication, including gestures and facial expressions. Children who are autistic can often relate well to their parents and carers, but not to other children. Autistic children also have a highly restricted range of behaviours and interests, may have repetitive body movements and a preference for routine, and may have a preoccupation with certain objects and activities. Those three characteristics are known as the "triad of impairments", and they are familiar to many families in the North who live with them 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Autistic children often represent a considerable challenge to those who care for, train, educate and support them. Children who suffer from autism need constant care and attention. In many cases, parents, like the mother who asked for my help and, indeed, that of the Assembly, have had to give up their employment to care full-time for their children. That has put considerable pressure on many families, who feel that they have been abandoned by the authorities, especially by the Health Department.
Autism will not go away, and the Minister of Health must take it seriously. Autism-UK stated that during the 1990s the rate of children being diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorders rose significantly. For example, some areas of Britain and Northern Ireland are recording rates as high as one in 200 children; overall the illness affects four times more males than females.
Once formal diagnosis has been made, early intervention is essential. Specialist education is critical. Delivered in a structured environment it can minimise behavioural difficulties and enhance an individual’s skills and life experiences. The two most effective methods are TEACCH (treatment and education of autistic and related communication handicapped children) and ABA (applied behaviour analysis). The latter, which entails intensive behavioural intervention, shows an autistic child how to learn academic and behavioural skills. ABA programmes, which can involve intensive learning of up to 40 hours a week with a trained professional, can be tailored to suit the individual needs of a child. Properly designed and delivered, ABA programmes contain most, if not all, of the necessary components for the effective treatment of children with autism. However, in Northern Ireland, the majority of parents who choose that teaching method must finance the programme themselves. They must deal with hostile attitudes towards the inclusion of ABA in the statementing process, despite the fact that research findings have shown that up to 40% of children with autism can benefit from ABA to the extent of being indistinguishable from normal children.
Due to varying resources and recognition of the gravity of autistic disorders by different trusts and health boards in Northern Ireland, there is glaring inequality in access to diagnosis, intervention and educational services. That must not continue. Why should parents and children who live in Tyrone and Fermanagh, for example, be denied the same access to, and standards of, services that are available in areas where the health trusts have the foresight and commitment to deal with autism?
That contrasts sharply with recent developments in the Republic of Ireland, where a more centrally planned, consistent approach to autism has been adopted.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Will the Member please draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Joe Byrne: In March 2002 two new units were opened in the Republic to deal with autistic children.
The lack of clear direction and commitment of resources for autism by the health authorities has been marked. The Minister must take the issue seriously and take the lead on it, as her counterpart in education has done. Under the new equality legislation, the Minister and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety have a public duty to ensure that all parents have equal access to the same level of diagnosis and intervention services. We eagerly await the publication of the task force report, which is due at the end of this month.
Autistic children and their parents do not have the luxury of time. They urgently require a screening programme for all pre-school children and equal access to services for autistic children throughout Northern Ireland.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Business Committee has allocated one hour for the debate, so I must ask Members to restrict their speeches to five minutes.
I have received one amendment to the motion, which is published in the Marshalled List of amendments.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "to" and insert:
"introduce a training programme for Health Visitors, School Nurses, Keystage 1 and Nursery School Teachers to facilitate the early detection of autism and to make adequate provision in collaboration with the Department of Education to meet the needs of autistic children."
I thank Mr Byrne for bringing to the Assembly an issue that vexes parents and society, because autistic children are special.
Ms Ramsey and I tabled the amendment because there is no widely acceptable, credible tool for universal mass screening. We believe that the use of any such mass-screening tool could create more problems than it solves, by creating false positives and negatives. In other words, children may be diagnosed as autistic when they are not, and autism may remain undetected in others.
There are also serious resource implications to consider. The cost of providing a mass-screening tool may impact on resources for treating autism. By training health visitors, school nurses, and Key Stage 1 and nursery teachers we can establish a framework for individual assessment that will be much more effective in detecting the spectrum of autism.
The key issue, which was missed by the well-intentioned motion, is that we must allocate more resources and support to meet the needs of autistic children, and their parents and carers.
It was in that context that Sinn Féin tabled the amendment. I thank Mr Byrne for bringing this difficult and vexing issue to the House. However, the amendment will much more effectively provide for those difficulties that are suffered by autistic children and their parents.

Rev Robert Coulter: I congratulate Mr Byrne for bringing this motion before the House. It is fitting that the Assembly should debate the matter today. However, I support the amendment, because it reaches beyond the original proposition and adds much more strength to what we are aiming at.
Early intervention is essential in the diagnosis of autism. The sooner that therapy begins, the better chance there is of a child’s speech and behaviour progressing. Professionals are understandably reluctant to label a child autistic. However, many children reach the age of six or seven — sometimes even adulthood — before being fully diagnosed. Health boards and trusts should work closely with education boards to ensure that parents and teachers have an early route for those children who reach school without being diagnosed. Health visitors, nurses and doctors should also receive specialist training in the symptoms to look out for, as in the majority of cases an autistic child is diagnosed as a result of an initial diagnosis of hearing or speech problems.
As well as early diagnosis being essential for a child’s development, financial and practical help is also available once a diagnosis of special needs has been made. Pre-school teachers, special nursery places, and occupational and speech therapy can then be availed of, as well as financial help for struggling parents who are often forced out of work because they must look after a child with learning difficulties. The disability living allowance (DLA) also needs to be re-examined. Many cases exists of parents of autistic children being turned down for that benefit. They have to undergo the trauma of an appeal to prove that their child needs help. A diagnosis of autism should be enough for DLA to be granted.
My views come not only from my interest in autism as a member of the Health Committee — they are expressed from the heart of a grandfather of an autistic boy. My grandson, who has just turned seven, was diagnosed with autism at the age of two and a half when he was referred to a speech therapist. He still has no speech. However, he was one of the lucky ones who benefited from early therapy, a nursery school place and a place at a special school where the staff were experienced in dealing with autistic spectrum disorder. His parents have also been greatly helped by Parents and Professionals & Autism (PAPA). I pay tribute to the work of that organisation.
Many autistic children in Northern Ireland have gone undetected and will continue to do so until we channel funds and personnel into that vital work. Some dictionaries describe autism as being "divorced from reality". It is time that MLAs woke up to reality and realised that autism is on the increase. We must be vigilant and help the health professionals. It is not only the need for early diagnosis that is essential. We must also implement a thorough programme of research that is aimed at finding the root causes of autism.
There has already been considerable debate within the community about the alleged links between autism and the MMR vaccine. I wish to emphase that I am not opposed to the vaccination of children. However, Northern Ireland is a democratic society, and one of the foundation stones of any democracy is freedom of choice. Parents must have the freedom to choose whether they want their children to be vaccinated with the single MMR jab or to receive those vaccinations separately. The MMR vaccine’s reputation has become tarnished because of its alleged links with autism.
One of the tragedies of autism is that, as yet, there is no known cure. Early diagnosis is therefore essential, as is an in-depth research programme into the causes of autism. It is also vital that a full independent inquiry be carried out into the safety of the MMR jab. I support the amendment.

Mrs Iris Robinson: I support the motion, and I thank Mr Byrne for tabling it. I shall include in my comments the needs of autistic adults, because they too require proper attention and adequate provision from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Public awareness of autistic spectrum disorder and the Government’s duty to target and fund measures against the illness must increase and must reflect better direction. We must all understand exactly what autism is, and how it affects both individuals and those who care for them.
Autism is a disability that disrupts the development of social and communication skills. It is believed that approximately 70% of those who suffer from autistic spectrum disorder also have learning difficulties. Whatever their level of ability, which varies widely — some have incredible special talents — they all share a common difficulty in making sense of the world in comparison with other children of a similar age and background. The common denominator is a clear difficulty with social relationships. The individual’s ability to join in social activities is clearly impaired, as is his or her capacity to understand the feelings of others. Most sufferers of autistic spectrum disorder experience great difficulty in acquiring, using and understanding speech; they also have problems with facial expressions and gestures. Typical behaviour and characteristics of autism include: resistance to normal teaching methods; sustained, odd play; lack of eye contact; apparent insensitivity to pain; a stand-offish manner; crying and tantrums for no apparent reason; and resistance to any change in routine.
Research suggests that there is no single cause for autism, but that it is a physical problem affecting those parts of the brain that integrate language and information processed from the senses. The condition is of physical, not emotional, origin and can be identified by the age of three in most children. Unfortunately, there is no known cure for autism, but with appropriate education and support services, sufferers can be helped to live with as much dignity and independence as possible. We in Northern Ireland can help to deliver that through the Assembly.
The significance of the central aim of the motion, namely early intervention, cannot be underestimated. Coupled with specialist education, early intervention is vital if children with autism are to develop their full potential in life. Early diagnosis of the disability is the first crucial step towards helping them to lead full lives. The later a child is diagnosed, the more he or she has had time to feel different and isolated from others, and the greater the trauma and worry for the family.
Over the years, several constituents whose children are autistic have contacted me. The effect that autistic spectrum disorder has had on the child and the family unit is shocking. For the family, it is hard to cope with a child who cannot mix socially and is indifferent to other children. Inappropriate social behaviour, tantrums and disruptive actions can cause much distress and worry within the family, so support and direction from those who know and care about autistic issues are essential. Isolation does not affect only the sufferers of autism; in many circumstances, their families experience it also.
I am often asked: "To whom do we turn? What help can we get?" There are groups and individuals who are making a serious attempt to help autistic spectrum disorder sufferers and their families to come to terms with the condition and to provide a decent life for them. Autism is a lifelong illness; the sooner it is diagnosed and cared for, the better for the child and his or her family.
The hard work and dedication of groups such as PAPA and Barnardo’s, which encourage and initiate training and research into the subject to facilitate better diagnosis and early intervention, cannot be praised highly enough. I support the motion.
12.00

Prof Monica McWilliams: This is a timely motion, given the recent public debate. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety debated the link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism when it became a crisis in the community. For that reason, it is important to debate autism exclusively.
There are several reasons why Joe Byrne’s motion is useful. It is strong because of the great public concern about the incidence of autism in children, and, until we find out how extensive that is, it will be very difficult to allocate resources to deal with it. Indeed, as other Members said, the earlier that autism is diagnosed, the earlier help can be given not just to the child, but to carers and supporters of families with autistic children.
Debate on autism has also been taking place in Britain. It is interesting that the Minister of State for Health, Jacqui Smith, has said that she will look positively at a national screening programme if it facilitates understanding of the syndrome. Others have talked about the spectrum of disorders. If officials in Britain are giving serious thought to a national screening programme, we must do likewise in Northern Ireland.
According to research conducted in the United States and recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, there has been a fourfold increase in autism. The research suggests that autism has not suddenly become more widespread because of a recent occurrence, but rather that it is now detected more often. If that is the case, it is due to screening.
If the detection of the condition is on the increase, not only are health professionals being better trained, but screening has been introduced to determine the extent of autism. The message from the United States and Britain is that we would do well to consider introducing a screening programme here.
It is also important to urge people who are concerned about the link between MMR and autism to follow advice and opt for the triple jab, rather than single vaccines, given the dangers that can arise as a result of delays in individual inoculations. Single jabs would increase the risk of disease and would also have huge resource implications. It may lead to people not having their children vaccinated, because single vaccines take much longer to administer than triple jabs. Triple jabs save resources.
If we advise that the link to autism is not proven, and promote the triple jab, we must not leave it at that. We must respond to those who are concerned and confused about the links between MMR and autism. As was suggested in the Health Committee and elsewhere, a national screening programme is the only way to allay the fears of those who write to us: the parents of autistic children, and other parents who demand the introduction of single vaccines in their GP practices. We must answer them; the best response is to continue to advise parents to choose the triple vaccine, and to introduce a screening programme for autistic spectrum disorders alongside it.
I welcome, as did Rev Robert Coulter, the announcement of the new centre, which is supported by parents and professionals in the field of autism. For many years, we have known that self-help and support groups have much to offer. They work alongside professionals and the task forces that deal with autism, bringing together all their knowledge and expertise. That inter-agency approach is extremely important.
However, the amendment in its own right is not to be ignored. If screening is introduced, it will be necessary to have the training in place.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I congratulate my Colleague Joe Byrne on tabling the motion and for mentioning the bodies that are available to help parents whose children have been diagnosed as autistic.
PAPA was formed in 1989 by a group of concerned parents and professionals. It is a registered charity in Northern Ireland, whose aim is to promote the needs of those with autistic spectrum disorders and their carers. A central office was established in 1992, and a western regional office in 1999. PAPA was first established with a staff of three. It was given a recurring budget of £40,000 per annum for three years. There are now between seven and nine staff. Unfortunately, however, its central funding remains the same. The service could not survive without volunteers.
In my own area, the Foyle Community Trust in the Western Health and Social Services Board used to allocate some funds, but was unable to help in the last financial year. I have spoken to health professionals, and the consensus is that two problems stand out as critical to care. The first, mentioned by every Member who has spoken, is early diagnosis. The second is increased central funding. It was said yesterday that to underline the dire need for increased funding in the Foyle area for autistic spectrum disorders, we have simply to look at the number of doctors who can treat or diagnose patients with autism or associated disorders in the area. At present, there is only one part-time doctor who is qualified to diagnose patients with the condition. The waiting time for this doctor stands at 10 to 11 months. That is unacceptable.
The crucial point seems to be that until a child or individual is diagnosed, the family and the child are in a state of limbo. Once diagnosis has taken place progress can be made, but an 11-month waiting list is perceived as being simply not good enough. Yesterday, the Foyle Community Trust manager for learning disability services said that it provides a service for any child with a severe learning disability. However, medium and milder cases do not receive care. A child who is just above or below the set requirements will miss out because the funding is not there.
PAPA provides parents and carers with leaflets that give valuable information; however, as specialist education and structured support can assist in maximising a child’s skills and in minimising any behavioural problems, the right education and care programmes are essential. For example, all children — not just autistic children — throw tantrums. Unless professionals are trained to recognise symptoms of the condition, sufferers can be left undiagnosed until adulthood.
I therefore support the motion, but a serious attempt to address the problem must be made by education and library boards so that it can be recognised by all health professionals. Central funding must also be addressed so that children can avail of specialist help and parents are not left to cope with the problem alone. The educational needs of autistic children are paramount also.
I support the motion.

Rev William McCrea: There is a requirement to address the challenge of screening, diagnosis and early intervention for children with autism. Why does this need exist? The answer is simple: for too long, early diagnosis has been a struggle for many people to achieve.
Screening leading to diagnosis should in turn lead smoothly to intervention by the appropriate health authority. However, many parents, particularly those with young children of pre-school age, have spoken to me — and I am sure to many others in the House — about falling into a black hole immediately after diagnosis, and the Assembly seeks to fill that void. Many parents, indeed several from my constituency, believe that the present system has failed them and that they have been left with no other recourse than to seek alternative expensive private consultations. They hope that their child’s condition will be diagnosed properly, that his or her abilities will be assessed, and that that will lead to a genuine consideration of the child’s future health and education needs.
Like other Members, I can produce many letters from parents expressing their distress at what they see as a failure in the system. It saddens me that they think that the system that was designed to offer them support and guidance when they are most needed has failed. There is a strong consensus among professionals about that, and Joanne Douglas of the Spectrum Diagnostic Assessment and Theory Centre of Queen’s University, Belfast said:
"Early intervention is beneficial for children with autism, partly because it is thought that they need intensive support to reach their optimal learning, and partly because early intervention is known to help reduce challenging behaviour."
No doubt, it will be argued that the current guidelines do not recommend universal screening for pre-school children with autism on the basis that there are no suitable screening instruments. However, if an autistic spectrum disorder is not identified at an early age, it follows that the extent of the need for provision will not be recognised either — that is a catch-22 situation.
There is a clear consensus that early identification must be achieved through the increased professional awareness of all community staff who have contact with young children and their families, particularly GPs, health visitors and educational psychologists. The consequences of not diagnosing autism at an early stage are worth bearing in mind. A survey conducted last year by the National Autistic Society said that only 43% of children at the less able end of the spectrum were diagnosed before the age of five, despite
"Having urgent needs that could have been addressed through early intervention."
Approximately 18% of people at the lower end of the spectrum did not receive a proper diagnosis until the age of 16 or beyond, yet evidence suggests that autism is becoming more prevalent, and I have statistics from other parts of the United Kingdom that show that. When I tried to ascertain the number of cases of autism in each health board area in Northern Ireland, I was disappointed to be informed by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that those statistics were unavailable. Does that not therefore acknowledge that if the information is unavailable, the appropriate provision for children is also unavailable?
Another survey conducted by the National Autistic Society showed that only 38% of adults with an autistic spectrum disorder admitted to having had a community care assessment. For many, slipping through the net until adulthood brought further complications, and those left to struggle without support more often than not spiralled into mental decline. That is a disappointing scenario, given that people with Asperger’s syndrome have several occupational strengths that make them excellent workers.
In recognising the need to care for children with autistic spectrum disorders, it follows that we must have professional care that can be delivered by those who are specifically trained to support individuals with those disorders. Only then will children benefit from the support of staff who have appropriate knowledge and experience of teaching children with an autistic spectrum disorder, and specialist training must be provided for teaching and support staff who work with autistic children. I support the motion.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá mé buíoch den Uasal Byrne as an deis a chur ar fáil domh plé a dhéanamh ar scagthástáil le haghaidh uathachais a thabhairt isteach do pháistí réamhscoile agus ar sheirbhísí a chur ar fáil le riar ar a riachtanais. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil an-suim ag móran Comhaltaí san ábhar.
Is féidir uathachas a aithint ar chomharthaí luatha lagaithe i sóisialú agus i gcumarsáid agus ar an iompraíocht athchleachtach. Cuimsíonn an speictream mí-eagair uathaigh páistí atá faoi lagú trom intleachta agus páistí eile atá ar ard-fheidhmiú, ar a dtugtar Siondróm Asperger.
I am grateful that Mr Byrne has provided an opportunity to discuss the introduction of autism screening for pre-school children and the provision of services to meet their needs. Autism is of considerable interest to many Members. It is defined by early signs of impairments, socialisation and communication difficulties and repetitive behaviour. Autistic spectrum disorders affect children of varying intellectual ability and impairment — from the severely impaired to those with high-functioning autism, termed Asperger’s Syndrome. Approximately one third of children with autism appear to lose skills in their second year, but the significance of the cause and life course of the disorder is unclear.
As stated again and again during the debate, the consensus among experts on autistic spectrum disorders is that early diagnosis and support are of great importance if the best outcome is to be achieved. Autism can manifest itself before the age of two and can be identified in some children at that early age. However, some children may not be diagnosed early because of the variability in the onset and severity of the condition. Several tests can be used to screen for different types of autism, including CHAT, the checklist for autism in toddlers, and DISCO, the diagnostic interview for social and communication disorders. Those tests can be useful in certain cases, but no one test is reliable for all autistic spectrum disorders.
Missing genuine difficulties or raising unnecessary worries are serious problems. For that reason, several studies in diagnostic screening procedures have been carried out. In March 2001, the Department of Health in London commissioned the Medical Research Council (MRC) to provide it with a clear picture of what scientific research has revealed about the epidemiology and causes of autism. The MRC report of December 2001 states that
"To date, there is no screening instrument that would identify all and only those children with ASDs".
‘Health for All Children’ is the periodic report of the joint working party on child health surveillance. The current draft of the fourth edition states that
"Formal screening for learning disabilities, developmental delay and cerebral palsy are not currently recommended".
Reference was made in the debate to the National Initiative for Autism: Screening and Assessment (NIASA). For the past 15 months, it has been examining screening, diagnosis and early interventions for autism. Its view is that there is no adequate screening tool for autism. Therefore, it could not recommend the introduction of screening.
Figures on the prevalence of autism vary according to the criteria applied. Therefore, I must treat with caution some of the figures that were referred to today. Those supplied by health and social services boards in September 2001 show that 732 children were known to trusts as having been diagnosed with an autistic spectrum disorder. Although there has been some increase in prevalence — the exact levels and causes of which require further research — there is no definitive evidence of an increasing incidence of autism in children. The increased professional awareness and higher public profile referred to in the debate may be contributing factors to the rise in public awareness of the condition, which may in turn lead to an illusion or suggestion of a higher prevalence rate when that is not the case.
The child health surveillance programme monitors the development of babies and pre-school children and is the primary means of early identification of impairments in development. However, some children may not be identified early because of the variability in the onset and severity of the condition. Given that autism affects communication and behaviour, it is difficult to identify the condition before children reach the age of two, when impairments begin to become noticeable.
However, behavioural communication impairments may not become apparent until a child has started school. The school health service, therefore, has a key role in identifying developmental disorders in school-age children, and it can refer children to a range of professionals, including speech therapists and child or educational psychologists. In that regard, education professionals work closely with their counterparts in health and social services.
If a child is identified as having autistic tendencies by a health visitor or other healthcare professional, he or she will be referred to relevant clinicians for formal diagnosis. That will trigger a referral to the appropriate health and social services and support, including that provided by voluntary organisations such as PAPA. I take this opportunity to add my praise and thanks to that of others for the work of the voluntary organisations, as well as those working in the service.
The Department sponsored a diagnostic scoping study that was carried out by PAPA and the University of Ulster between June 1997 and December 1998. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of diagnostic provision for people with autistic spectrum disorders and their families, and to make recommendations for the enhancement of service provision. The key principle is that diagnosis should take place as early as possible in the child’s life to sustain the family’s adaptation to the outcome of the diagnosis and to maximise and enhance the child’s developmental potential. The report on the study was issued to health and social services boards to inform service development.
Healthcare professionals’ awareness of autism and autistic spectrum disorders has increased significantly in recent years and continues to do so. We are committed to developing that understanding further. The improved understanding is resulting in better diagnosis, which, in turn, is informing service development. For its part, PAPA has been instrumental in rolling out the treatment and education of autistic and related communication handicapped children (TEACCH) education programme. It has also provided important awareness training for professional healthcare staff. Health visitors and school nurses receive autism awareness training through a one-year postgraduate course at the University of Ulster. Training is not currently provided in the early detection of autism. However, as part of the standard five-year review, a group that is made up of community nurses, nurse managers and representatives from the University of Ulster and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, is examining the content of the curriculum. The issues raised during the debate will be fed into that review.
Iris Robinson asked about autistic adults. Service provision is made through the community learning disability services.
With regard to the weight of research evidence on the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, the World Health Organization, the Medical Research Council, the Medicine Safety Committee and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation have all stated that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. I have seen no credible evidence to the contrary. The Medicine Safety Committee and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation also advised recently that the MMR vaccine is safer than giving the vaccines separately. Our Chief Medical Officer wrote to GPs and other healthcare professionals in February to update advice on handling parental concerns. The purpose of the letter was to update professionals on the most recent studies on the MMR vaccine and to assure them that the Department and independent medical experts remain convinced that the vaccine is both safe and the most effective way to protect children from measles, mumps and rubella.
Mr Byrne raised a point about applied behaviour analysis, which is one of many interventions that have been suggested as beneficial for people with autism. Various elements of behavioural therapy are already being used by healthcare professionals in that field. Although it is recognised that behavioural therapy can be beneficial, the particular intervention used is determined by a clinical judgement based on the assessed needs of the child. I am not aware of the case that Mr Byrne mentioned, so he may wish to write to me about that.
The Department of Education’s task force on autism took evidence from boards and trusts, rather than formally involve the Department. The report will be out for debate, and I look forward to that. I reiterate that healthcare professionals accept the need for early diagnosis and intervention, as has been stressed here.
Annie Courtney asked about support for PAPA. In the last three financial years, departmental support for PAPA has totalled £239,000. The Department has provided the project funding for the diagnostic scoping study, and will consider any funding proposals submitted by PAPA. Of course, these will go alongside other proposals.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Minister, I must ask you to conclude your remarks soon.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The health and social services boards are reporting on developments in services for children with autism, and these are being progressed on a board basis. One of my Department’s priorities for action requires boards and trusts to continue to develop therapy provision to reduce waiting times for children’s and adults’ services. We will continue to monitor developments in screening, and review current arrangements in the light of positive developments. Officials are involved in discussions with PAPA about how additional awareness training for healthcare professionals might be provided. The care and development of children with autism is a shared responsibility across a number of Departments, and a holistic approach will offer a better and brighter future for these children, which is an absolute commitment on all our parts.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank and commend Joe Byrne for tabling this motion. John Kelly and I proposed our amendment because there is no widely accepted, credible tool for universal mass screening. Other Members pointed out that autism has been brought to the fore lately, and that the issue has been raised with political parties. With that in mind, I commend PAPA and other groups for placing autism not only at the top of the political agenda, but at the top of the general agenda.
I welcome yesterday’s announcement by the Minister of Education that videos will be developed and produced for the parents of children with autism and dyslexia, and that a CD-ROM will be provided for their teachers. He also said that the Centre for Cross Border Studies would engage a special education teacher on secondment to organise and facilitate a jointly funded programme designed to promote dialogue and co-operation among professionals in the field, which is key.
People want a statement. It is on record that the four reports that the task group has commissioned highlight the need for the training of classroom teachers to identify children who may have an autistic spectrum disorder or dyslexia, to address their difficulties, and to meet their needs. The reports also point out the importance of the involvement of parents in the assessment of their children’s difficulties, and the training of parents in suitable approaches to meeting their children’s needs, so that a continuity of care and learning approach can be provided throughout the child’s day. That ties in with our amendment. We are calling for early intervention. Health visitors, nursery schoolteachers and school nurses should be involved in early intervention. Key to our amendment is that by providing this crucial training and development of health visitors, school nurses, Key Stage 1 teachers and nursery teachers, we would create a framework of individual assessment that would be much more effective in detecting autism.
It is also vital to provide resources to meet the needs of people with autism and their families — that is what people want, it is what parents want, and what the groups are telling us is needed. The key requirement is early intervention, and I agree with Bob Coulter, who has first-hand knowledge of autism, that the amendment goes further than the original motion. We do not need, and cannot allow, children to fall out of the loop by creating false positives or negatives. The recent cases of inaccurate screening for breast cancer and of misdiagnosed breast cancer in Hammersmith Hospital should make us all cautious. There is no universally, accepted issue about mass screening.
Several Members have spoken about a joined-up approach, which is key. We need a joined-up approach from the Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That is exactly what our amendment is about. There is no point saying that we need this and that, when the motion calls for only one Department to provide what is needed. The Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must get together; one has as much responsibility as the other.
I agree wholeheartedly with Annie Courtney that the professionals need to be trained to identify the problems. That is the key point of our amendment. I commend Joe Byrne for tabling the motion, and I do not want to take away from that. However, our amendment takes it a small step further. It puts the onus not only on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, but on the Department of Education, which is crucial. I urge Members to support the amendment.

Mr Joe Byrne: The debate is timely, because many parents and children suffer as a result of this disability. They feel that they are on their own and are not being taken seriously, especially by the health authorities. My reason for tabling this motion is that many children and parents are suffering. This has been a neglected disability for many years.
I want a screening system to be introduced because there must be a more formal process of diagnosing those children who suffer from autism. The current system is too haphazard. I accept the amendment’s sentiments; it is trying to address the issue of training. However, I would not want the amendment to be an escape clause, for we would be failing the people who want us to seriously address the issue.
It is completely unfair that families who suspect that their child has major behavioural problems feel that they must seek a private medical consultation with autism experts. There is something wrong with our healthcare system if we neglect those parents who feel that they need that due attention. That is why I chose carefully the words of the motion. I accept that all who have spoken during the debate have done so in good faith. They are genuinely concerned about the problem and want to try to improve the situation.
John Kelly made the case for the amendment. He said that early diagnosis is the crucial issue — a point that was emphasised by several other Members. Parents are seeking reassurance on that issue. They want early diagnosis so that intervention and treatment can occur. Bob Coulter brought real-life experience to the debate when he spoke about how he has witnessed the problems of children who suffer from this disability. I was encouraged by his words, and I accept the sentiments and the content of his speech.
Bob Coulter and other Members praised the work of PAPA. It has been in existence for only 12 years in Northern Ireland, yet it has highlighted this difficulty and disability in a co-ordinated way. I pay tribute to those who are involved in voluntary organisations like PAPA, who are trying to highlight the problems and issues. They seek to bring it to the attention of the authorities that help is required.
Mrs Iris Robinson also supported the sentiments of the motion and made reference to autistic adults. There is a feeling that they are often abandoned. In particular, elderly parents worry about what will happen to their adult autistic son or daughter. They worry about who will look after their child when they die.
There is ongoing debate about which diagnostic technique to use. I am not entering that debate, but I hope that the Health Department will not cop out because it feels that no definitive technique of screening exists.
This is not a time for cop out. I appeal to the Minister to see that her Department takes the issue seriously and gets involved in co-ordinating the efforts of the health boards and trusts across Northern Ireland. The people of Tyrone and Fermanagh should not be neglected. I know people in Belfast who have had to fight very hard, and attend case meetings, to try to get people to take the issue seriously.
Parents are annoyed because they feel that they must fight and agitate. They often feel that the medical professionals doubt their sincerity when they try to get them to take the issue seriously. I support the National Health Service, but I find it intolerable that people must resort to private medical consultation.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Joe Byrne: I thank the Minister for attending the debate and for the content of her speech. I appeal to her to take the matter seriously. Let us have action in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I support the task force endeavours to have proper co-ordination of the healthcare diagnosis, the treatment and the education provision needed.
In the interests and spirit of what has been a worthwhile debate, I accept the amendment. However, the amendment must be understood as being an addition to the spirit and sentiment of my motion. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must take the matter seriously and work in collaboration with the Department of Education.
Question
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to introduce a training programme for Health Visitors, School Nurses, Keystage 1 and Nursery School Teachers to facilitate the early detection of autism and to make adequate provision in collaboration with the Department of Education to meet the needs of autistic children.

Burns Report

Mr Sammy Wilson: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the publication of the Burns report on 24 October 2001 on the review of post-primary education.
One reason for tabling the motion was to give Members an opportunity to comment on a report provided for a Department in the local Administration that has generated the most widespread contributions and responses from Members and from people in our constituencies.
I receive four or five letters every day from people who are concerned about the Burns Report and the way in which the Minister intends to use it to follow his narrow socialist agenda. Despite assurances from the Minister — and there have been many — that he has not made his mind up on the issue, and that he wishes to listen to the consultations and the responses to the consultations, he is clearly on record, from the first day that he took the job, as saying what he intends to do. He described the selection process as "inhumane" — something that many of us took with a pinch of salt, given that it came from someone who carried out, and who directed others to carry out, some of the most inhumane actions in Northern Ireland in the past 30 years.
When the Minister spoke to the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) recently, he said that academic selection must go. That was hardly the view of someone approaching the subject with an open mind. Hence, widespread concern exists in the community that a Minister, because of the system in the Assembly, can make decisions for which he need not account. He can impose his will on the education system in Northern Ireland.
I have no doubt about what the Minister intends to do; he has made that clear. He intends to destroy the existing system as systematically and as totally as he and his compatriots destroyed the centre of Londonderry when he was the commander of the IRA there. The Burns Report has provided him with educational Semtex with which he intends to destroy the system. I am not sure about Mr Burns’s intention; however, I know what the Minister’s intention is, because he has made it clear.
There is a public outcry, and desperation is creeping into the Minister’s actions as he goes around looking for support. He is a man who knows that his day is going. He will be Minister for only one more year, and I assure the House that, come the next election, when the DUP is the biggest party in the Assembly, neither Martin McGuinness nor any of his compatriots will be in the Northern Ireland Executive. Unlike David Trimble, when we say that we shall not have terrorists in Government, we mean that we shall not have terrorists in Government.
There is urgency about the task that the Minister has set himself. He is now trying to go on the offensive. A massive propaganda campaign is under way, which would have done Joseph Goebbels proud, in which £600,000 of taxpayers’ money is being used to produce 15,000 videos and to circulate pamphlets to every household in Northern Ireland that outlines the Minister’s case for destroying the education system. The pamphlet is not a balanced piece of work; it is full of inaccuracies. However, it has been paid for by taxpayers’ money. I have no doubt that, should the Minister feel that the pamphlet is not going to convince people, the IRA/Sinn Féin election machine will go into business, and there will be multiple collections of forms to ensure that the outcome that he wants for his mini-referendum is achieved.
I could say much about the Burns Report, but I shall leave some items to other Members for comment. Let us look at issues such as the collegiate system, with the levels of bureaucracy that that will entail. There will be a board of principals; a collegiate support centre; a collegiate liaison council and a collegiate standing conference. We are heading down a road in education that is being disparaged in health, where there are levels of bureaucracy in the form of trusts. Almost every week in the Assembly I hear people railing against such bureaucracy.

Mr Peter Weir: Does the Member agree that the only thing missing is a collegiate civic forum?

Mr Sammy Wilson: Even that might come eventually. The proposal has not been costed, and there is no indication as to how it will interact with the education and library boards — that is an entire debate in itself. The costing issue has been dismissed by the assertion that the proposal will not really be that much more expensive.
Under the Burns proposals, everyone will be entitled to school transport in the collegiate system. Mr Burns seems to think that that will not cost a great deal of money.
The Burns Report states:
"We propose that transport assistance should be provided to any suitable school within the Collegiate which is designated as the ‘local Collegiate’."
That could multiply the transport budget by five, and yet no indication is given of that. That is a whole debate at which we must look. However, Burns’s contention that we should end academic selection is central to it all. The Minister has tried to portray this as ending selection, but that is a fraud, because Burns does not say that. Burns says that he wishes to see an end to academic selection, but he then goes on to say that schools will be oversubscribed for a long time and that there will have to be some selection criteria for those schools.
Mr Burns states that that selection criteria will be fairer because they will be based on parental choice. However, as some schools will be oversubscribed, it stands to reason that parental choice will be a fraud because parents will not have a free choice. That is why he then had to introduce all kinds of social criteria, not academic criteria. The most damning social criterion of all is a pupil’s proximity to the school. He said that it would be used only as a last resort. Most principals whom I have spoken to have said that the first three criteria — parental choice, siblings at the school and whether your parent is a teacher at the school — would leave about 95% of the places undecided. Therefore, it will come down to where a pupil lives or whether a special case can be made.
Believe me, when it comes to making special cases, people who are socially advantaged will have the advantage, not the people who are socially deprived. Those who are socially advantaged can get reports from consultant psychologists. We shall not move away from selection, but we shall move away from selection that is based on ability and the best educational route for a youngster to selection that is based on social standing. If any Member believes that the socially deprived have a better chance under a selection system that depends on their social standing, they must live in the clouds. We shall not have a fair system, despite the fact that all the arguments that the Minister has advanced are about the system being fairer.
The most bizarre argument that I have heard from the Minister is that he now wishes to become the champion of working-class Protestant children. It is a pity that he did not think about that 30 years ago when he was blowing them up, shooting them and making them orphans. Anyone who believes that Martin McGuinness is concerned about the well-being of Protestant children from working class backgrounds needs their head felt.
The other argument is that our system has failed. Mr Burns makes that argument, and the Minister repeats it parrot-like ad infinitum — some people would say ad nauseam. The Minister seems to revise his opinion all the time; yesterday he said that we are not as good at the top end as we should be, and we are no good at the bottom end. He tells us that he was deprived, that he was denied a good education, and that that is why he had to become a butcher boy; of course, he then moved on to being a master butcher. However, I would have thought that at least he could have understood his press statements and the answers that he has given to the House. If he did not understand them, perhaps his officials could have explained them to him.
The Minister said in a press release that he was delighted that schools in Northern Ireland were improving their performance and that year 12 pupils who got five or more GCSEs had risen to 56% this year. That figure was better than in England or Wales, where only 48% of students reached that standard. According to his press release, we do better at the top end. He gave an answer to my friend, Mr Weir, less than a month ago, and I am sure that his short-term memory cannot be that bad. He said that when it comes to the bottom end, we have done better than Scotland, England or Wales over the past five years with regard to the number of students who leave school without any GCSE qualifications. Therefore, where is this nonsense coming from that we have a system, which tries to slot people in according to what is best for them educationally, that hurts the very good students, the very bad students or those in between? That is not the case on the basis of the figures that he has provided to the House and to the public.
Children have different abilities and aptitudes and need different educational experiences, which, ironically, Mr Burns talks about in his guiding principles. Youngsters’ abilities are different and varied, yet the Minister wants to fit them all into schools that cater for all abilities. He cannot have it both ways. If one says that children have different aptitudes, skills and academic ability — and they have — one must have different routes open to them. The alternative is to take the discredited system, which was introduced in England in the 1960s, that says that everyone should go to the same kind of school, supposedly in the interests of equality, for exactly the same training in spite of their differing abilities.

Mr Robert McCartney: Does the Member agree that the present system of education on the mainland is withdrawing from the comprehensive system and passively recognising that it has been a failure?

Mr Sammy Wilson: They use the words of the Prime Minister’s adviser that the system, which the Minister and Mr Burns wish to impose in Northern Ireland, is "bog standard". The Minister takes his socialism to the nth degree when he says:
"Equality in my view does not just mean equality of opportunity, it means the equality of outcome."
Does that mean that everyone must leave school with 15 GCSE A-grade passes, or that everyone must leave school with a mediocre education? That is the only meaning that I can take from that statement, and that is what is driving his agenda.
Mr Burns talks about the pupil profile, which would include more than simply academic ability and testing, and says that that should be available to all parents. I have a couple of difficulties with that. First, there is no evidence that it will advantage the people it is supposed to advantage. When we had this in the 1960s, it was found to be even more socially divisive because it fell down when it came to extracurricular activities. Many middle-class parents can provide more support for youngsters than parents from working-class areas, where there is not the same income to support a wide variety of experience — dancing classes, music classes, et cetera.
We must be careful if we go down that route. If we want to measure the wide ability of youngsters — their sporting talent, their musical, dramatic or artistic talents — that is fair enough. However, objective testing is still required and puts everyone on a level keel. That testing leaves teachers less open to the accusation of favouritism, and in an age of litigation leaves teachers less open to court action. Teachers would be forced to be the sole arbiters of those pupil profiles, and they would be mad to go down that route. Outside objective testing is required, and whether that is done over a long period with less intrusive tests or as one test a year in each of the final three years, it does not matter. However, the principle of having outside testing is an important one.
There is no point in the reports, when available, going only to the parents; they must also be made available to the receiving schools. The argument against that in the Burns Report is that that will put teachers under undue pressure. However, the report later states that once the schools received the reports, they could be used to stream youngsters. Where is the logic in that? If the reports are to be used by the schools to stream the youngsters, why do the schools not have them in the first place? Moreover, how do the schools protect the teachers by saying that the reports are only used after the youngsters are admitted, when they can be used to stream them? That does not make sense. It is important that the parents should have sight of the reports with an objective measured by some outside agency. The schools should also receive the reports.
Another argument is that the selection procedure fails youngsters. If the Minister believes that, it shows his academic shallowness. Is it so that suddenly, when children reach the age of 10, in the month of November when they do the tests, they move from being successes to being failures? Academic and educational failure has its origins long before children ever sit a test — failure sometimes takes root shortly after birth. The environment into which they are born or their early years in school may affect them. The problem needs to be addressed then and not by scrapping the means of testing youngsters to see the best way forward for post-primary education. I did want to mention post-primary schools, but I am sure that other Members will do that later in the debate.
The Burns Report is a recipe for disaster. In the hands of the Minister of Education it is a dangerous weapon. I hope that the Minister will not try to bypass the Assembly when making decisions on the subject and that the Assembly will show good balance and common sense when making its judgement.
The sitting was suspended at 1.00 pm.
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair) —

Ms Jane Morrice: I have received many requests to speak to this motion, and, in order to facilitate as many of them as possible, I will set an initial time limit of seven minutes.

Mr Robert McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You said that you would set an initial time limit of seven minutes. Does that mean that subsequent Members who speak might have more than seven minutes?

Ms Jane Morrice: Absolutely not. I used the word "initial" to allow me to reduce the time from seven minutes if necessary.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am glad to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate. Members have had the chance to consider in detail the proposals in the Burns Report, and they can now comment on them and offer constructive criticism.
The Ulster Unionist Party has several concerns about the proposals and is therefore unable to endorse them. It is considering the recommendations in detail and analysing their potential impact on education in Northern Ireland. However, it will be making more workable recommendations for education, and it encourages full participation in the consultation process.
The main proposals of the Burns Report can be outlined as follows: an end to the transfer tests; the prohibition of academic selection for grammar schools; the possible closure of up to 40 schools — a worrying prospect that would have a serious, adverse impact, especially on rural areas; the development of pupil profiles; the requirement of all schools to use the same specified admission criteria; and the creation of networks of post-primary schools.
The basic conclusion of the Burns Report is the introduction of a comprehensive system of education. The report places much emphasis on the need to ensure that there will be equity among schools and pupils. However, it does that at the expense of a sharp examination of our schools’ standards and how they might be improved. That lack of focus on objective standards and the failure to explain how the proposals would raise standards are serious shortfalls.
Most people accept that there are problems with the transfer test. However, the recommendation that academic selection should end is also unacceptable. That sort of approach would inevitably lead to the creation of a comprehensive system of education, and it is disingenuous of the report’s supporters to argue otherwise.
One problem is that it is doubtful that there is support for a comprehensive system. Parents’ views must be considered, and the report contains no evidence to support the view that such a system would improve standards overall. The experience of the comprehensive system in GB suggests that the reverse is true. It would be ironic if Northern Ireland were to establish a comprehensive system, when GB is attempting to move away from that failed system.
The establishment of pupil profiles is sensible; however, receiving schools must be able to view them. What is the use of such profiles if they cannot be used to help place pupils in the most appropriate schools? The Burns admission criteria also show a lack of understanding of how the system is likely to work. I believe that they would lead ultimately to selection by postcode. The report appears to overlook the fact that once distance is a prime consideration, that will exacerbate the problems of oversubscription. At present oversubscription is limited because it is known that some pupils are likely to be admitted to popular schools, so it is incorrect to argue that distance will come into play only as a last resort tie-breaker, and the Assembly must consider that.
On the creation of collegiates, it is desirable to have closer co-operation between neighbouring schools. However, the problem rests with the report’s view that the arrangements will be central to the system and will create, in size and composition, a system that is so bureaucratic that it will not work practically. It must also be stressed that there is no experience, internationally or otherwise — there is not even a pilot scheme — on which to base a collegiate system. It is worth noting that, given the announcement made by the Northern Catholic bishops last week, the collegiate proposal contained in the Burns report is dead in the water.
The Minister is mishandling the consultation process that he instigated. It is no longer being conducted in a fair and equitable manner. Unfortunately, officials in the Department of Education appear to have allowed themselves to become mere cheerleaders for the type of education system advocated by the Minister and his party. That goes beyond their remit and is not acceptable. The video that was produced by the Department, and the household pamphlet that is in the making, are clear examples of the lack of impartiality shown by the Department, which will not assist the proper consideration and resolution of this important issue. In relation to the household pamphlet, provision should be made for granting public funds to allow groups that are opposed to those ill-thought-out proposals to put their alternative proposals to parents, thus preserving objectivity.
There are many more issues; however, time does not permit me to address them. I want to apologise to Sammy Wilson, who proposed the motion, because I may not be able to stay until the end of this important debate. There is no discourtesy intended.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: It is important that people realise that Northern Ireland needs an education system that is effective and well-resourced. We need a system that is open, inclusive, flexible enough to cater for all needs, and responsive to the society that it serves. It is vital that there be a new all-ability system to offer education on an inclusive basis, guaranteeing equality of opportunity for all.
There has been much opposition to selection, on the grounds that the system is unfair, divisive, ineffective and damaging to children and society. I acknowledge the benefits that were brought about when the 11-plus was introduced. In a post-war society, in which standard education finished at age 14, it opened the door to secondary-level education for a new generation of children. However, we are now in the twenty-first century, and the system must be adapted to reflect the needs of modern society.
I broadly welcome the Burns Report. However, I have reservations that I will refer to later. In general, the principle and objectives of the report reflect the intention to develop a high-quality education system that will allow each young person to develop his or her full potential and will reflect the value of each child. The report acknowledges the untold damage that was inflicted on generations of children by inaccurate testing, artificial segregation and damage to fragile self-confidence. The assessment that the current system is inflexible, fragmented, wasteful of valuable resources and lacks equality of opportunity is valid also.
There is a compelling case for the fundamental reform of transfer procedures from primary to post-primary schools. My office has received numerous letters from parents, all agreeing that the 11-plus should be abolished and that academic selection for 11-year-olds should end. There is also broad support for increased emphasis on choice. That can be seen as a positive step towards equality and can bring benefits in human terms by reducing the damage to self-esteem.
However, as I said before, I have concerns about equality of opportunity and parity of esteem. There is still an apparent intention to retain distinct types of schools that tend towards more vocational studies. I have reservations about categorising 11-year-old children in that way, even if it is not intended to be fixed or final. The proposals to broaden options at post-14 years should help to improve parity of esteem, though it may be difficult to change attitudes while retaining distinctive pathways from age 11.
I am also concerned that, despite all the good intentions, streaming in line with social and economic backgrounds, rather than individual preference or potential, will still occur. That is backed up by European evidence that academic school populations are made up of children from better-off backgrounds. The high academic standards of the present can be maintained and offered to more children through the teaching of 11- to 18-year-olds together, alongside improved vocational and social development.
The report recommends change. It is at the consultation stage, and nothing has been set in stone. That is why this debate is important. It is also important that grammar schools should not feel threatened or cause panic in the community by informing parents that their children will not be eligible for entrance under the new criteria. The main principles behind the report should be increased opportunity and choice for all. The review body has been most thorough in dealing with issues such as the transfer to post-primary education and the incorporation of the wide-ranging needs of young people in schools.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Burns Report, even though it is the second time that the matter has been raised. We could go over the old arguments ad infinitum, but that would not change who says what in the House. I thought that we were having some impact on the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Education Committee by agreeing that there was a need for change in education and that people want that change. That is open to debate and disagreement.
The Burns Report has taken us to a new level in the education debate in that we now have a way of finding the change that meets present needs, rather than those of 40 or 50 years ago. It must be done; people agree that it must be done, including teachers and parents. That fundamental point must be addressed. Some parents in some areas are not being addressed by their Assembly representatives. The situation has not changed over the past 50 years or more.
This debate is about equality and giving a voice to everyone, especially the most vulnerable and the most disadvantaged in our society. Research by Gallagher and Smith on the impact of academic selection has clearly shown that there is a strong correlation between the transfer test and a child’s socio-economic status. The percentage of grammar school pupils who are entitled to free school meals ranges from a fraction of one per cent to around twenty-five per cent. In secondary schools it ranges from 20% to 70%. In other words, of all post-primary pupils who are entitled to free school meals, 15% are in grammar schools and 85% are in other schools.
Several arguments are made in favour of grammar schools. It is said that they offer opportunities for able children to succeed irrespective of socio-economic status. However, the main indicator of socio-economic status is the percentage of pupils who are entitled to free school meals, which offers stark and startling evidence to the contrary. It is argued that selection is made on the grounds of academic excellence, not according to a pupil’s socio-economic background. Schools, representatives and others should note the evidence that the poorest children in the Western Education and Library Board and South-Eastern Education and Library Board areas are between five and 10 times more likely to be in a school other than a grammar establishment.
Another argument is that significant numbers of children from poorer backgrounds attend grammar schools; that is not so. Academic selection and greater affluence are closely and inextricably linked. The argument that a comprehensive system would lead to selection by postcode is arrogant and hypocritical. The polarisation by postcode, as evidenced by the figures, is astounding.
That grammar schools ensure high standards of academic excellence for few is dramatically outlined in these and other figures. Grammar schools are not for the many, and, in particular, they are not for children from poorer backgrounds. The argument is for the preservation of privilege; it is not for the equalisation of opportunity.
People claim that grammar schools serve communities well and that children from poorer backgrounds are admitted to them. In neither case is that true, and that is especially so regarding children from the Protestant community. Who is representing the Protestant children from the areas that I mentioned?
A point was made about the Minister’s concern. The Minister is concerned about children in all areas. Do those who purport to support grammar schools and academic-based selection represent everyone in their constituencies? Do they represent people in deprived areas? Do they represent those who vote for them in the matter of education, given the figures that I have outlined? People in such areas would agree that they have certainly not been represented over the past 50 years. The problem is that people have voted along sectarian lines and have failed to use their votes to help themselves educationally.
The problem is academic-based selection. People have been carried along by the arguments made today by Sammy Wilson and others, without examining the subject in detail. It is important that the issue be debated in such a way as to bring us into a new era, and that it should not be about simply sticking to the same old sectarian lies.
Parents, particularly those from deprived areas, need to examine the arguments closely. There are deprived areas in many of the constituencies of Members who purport to represent people as MLAs. People must look closely at what will be best for their children’s future. What will represent the best future for all children, not just the few? Do the representatives of the 8% who attend grammar schools from deprived areas, particularly TSN areas, represent all children in those areas properly? Are they representing the few elitist groups who are pushing them harder in this debate? Go raibh maith agat.

Mrs Eileen Bell: The debate is opportune as there is obviously an interest among the public. However, I was concerned and disappointed by some of Sammy Wilson’s speech. Like many Members, I have been inundated with letters from parents who are concerned about the repercussions of the Burns Report and its implementation.
Last October, I said on behalf of the Alliance Party that we welcomed the Burns Report as a basis for studying alternatives to the discredited 11-plus transfer procedure, but that we were — even then — concerned about implementing it in its entirety.
There are practical problems with the setting up of collegiates, which would, it is hoped, provide a flexible education system that would benefit all children. The advantage of such a system is that it would require real working together if it were to be a success for all pupils. The one thing that was generally agreed by most people is that the 11-plus is an inequitable system that divides children at an unnecessarily early age into successes and failures. We must make it a priority that, whatever comes out of this report, the trauma and tension for pupils, parents and teachers should become a thing of the past.
The new system must be flexible enough to allow all children, with the help of teachers and parents, to be able, at a responsible stage — not during the transfer from primary to post-primary education — to make their own decisions about their educational future. That could be regarded as personal selection, but one that is made with the knowledge of ones capabilities and aspirations.
The Alliance Party will be making its submission, as will other parties, after we have studied in detail this report with the party’s education group. It will then be approved by the party council, so I will not make specific comments. However, our view is that a qualifying entrance test should not be the method of transfer. Also, more investment should be made, whatever the system, in nursery education. Closer attention could be paid to the integrated system, which the Alliance Party feels is inclusive, and which could be seen as a possible pilot scheme to show the impact of the abolition of the 11-plus in Northern Ireland. We will be discussing the appropriate number of collegiates, because there may not be a need for so many. We will be looking at practicalities such as transport — the transfer between schools depending on the curriculum subjects that a child chooses. We should not throw out the good aspects of secondary and grammar schools that have existed until now, but we must ensure that all children are allowed to make their own free choices with the acceptance of parents and the advice of teachers.
I want to read part of one of the many letters that I received in support of grammar schools. The writer concludes:
"I feel that grammar schools should remain an essential and integral part of any future educational system and should not be seen as an elite institution catering for a few, but should be seen as part of a system combining academic, vocational and technical training so that the needs and abilities of all children are met. In addition, greater freedom of movement between the different types of schools should be possible so that all pupils can achieve their full potential".
I, and the party’s education group, see no problem with that, and we will be examining the matter.
As I said earlier, there are questions to be asked. The Minister will be aware of them. We must know where the money for that will come from. There are worries about the capital programme and other budgets. Last week the Education Committee was deliberating over the bids. So, where will the money come from? There are worries about the pupil profiles. There is also a very practical problem that we cannot escape: how will transfer between schools in sensitive areas be achieved so that the system works properly? We must also look at training and the morale of teachers, and the contribution of parents must not be undermined. It must be clarified so that they can play their part in full.
Given the years of trauma that we have experienced, we need radical proposals that will allow modern society to develop. Children and education have changed, and we must ensure that education is in keeping with our hopes for a good future for our children. We should always remember that pupils must be the first priority. We must provide systems that will allow them to achieve their potential, whoever they are. That will mean a better future for them and for society in general. I support the motion.

Mr Patrick Roche: The Burns Report has two core proposals. One involves the destruction of the grammar school system, the most successful sector of secondary education; the other involves the introduction of a so-called collegiate system that would effectively introduce comprehensive education to Northern Ireland. The entire thrust of the Burns Report is contrary to the best current educational thinking and Government policy.
The argument about the transfer system — effectively the destruction of the grammar school sector — seems to be based on an aversion to academic selection, with which the 11-plus test is identified. Therefore, it is important to ask what type of test it is. The current transfer test essentially examines English, mathematics and science. In other words, it tests numeracy and literacy skills and is, therefore, an examination of two areas of education. If pupils are not proficient in numeracy and literacy, they could not possibly be proficient in anything else, because those skills are prerequisites for any educational success.
Northern Ireland is well down the list of international comparisons of literacy and numeracy skills. However, we are not exceptional, as the same situation applies to the Republic and the rest of the UK. Instead of doing away with this type of testing and the emphasis at primary level, which is where we lay the basis for literacy and numeracy achievement, we should be trying to enhance the focus on English, science and mathematics as prerequisites for success at secondary and tertiary education.
Nobody wants to say that a particular form of transfer that properly focuses on English and mathematics should not be assessed occasionally — of course it should. A cursory reading of the Gallagher Report shows that it failed to make any substantive case against the present system. Its case was based on anecdotal evidence, mainly from secondary school teachers who were expressing their disillusion and a lack of morale, rather than giving an objective evaluation of what the test means for students.
Pupils must transfer from primary to secondary education at some point. We can debate from now until doomsday about the age at which that should take place, but again the Gallagher Report did not mention the need for radical change. At 11 years of age, students will have been at primary school for about six years; they mature earlier. By the time children have reached age 11, they almost certainly want to move to secondary education.
Therefore, the case for abolishing the transfer system, with the emphasis on those prerequisites, has not been made. The idea that we can dismiss focus on English and mathematics by derogatorily categorising them as academic is nonsense.
The transfer test, and the fact that we must have a system that enables students to progress from primary school to secondary school in order to get the education that is most suited to them, is not the problem. The problem is failure in the non-grammar sector. The level of achievement in that sector is appalling. A vast number of students — probably in excess of 60% — leave the sector with virtually no qualifications. That must be addressed to ensure that children outside the grammar sector are placed in another secondary stream that can offer them highly rated vocational and technical education. If there were real choice for students in the secondary sector, involving highly rated technical education and grammar school education, the sense of failure associated with the current transfer system would disappear. I remember my primary school days. Children who left primary school to go to technical college were proud of that achievement. They felt no sense of failure.
Members have mentioned social deprivation, which is an important issue. In looking at educational achievement in certain sections of the community, Members must face the fact that, in many areas of Northern Ireland, the family and social infrastructure for success in anything, including education, is entirely absent. Members must realise that if they decide to pour more money into those areas they might as well pour it into a bottomless pit, because they will make no significant change to what such people can achieve.
I am intrigued by the mindset that would want to destroy the best in education in Northern Ireland and do nothing to improve the worst. I imagine that it belongs to a person who did not achieve anything and is determined that no one else will.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I thank the Member for East Belfast, Mr Sammy Wilson, for tabling the take-note motion. Members’ discussions are timely. I welcome the abolition of the 11-plus. The Burns Report does not go far enough for my party. It is messing about with the idea of collegiates, while trying to keep those in grammar schools happy. If we are to address those issues, we need a comprehensive system. If we wanted to do something about children’s education, we would not start at age 11 — we should start from birth.
The previous Member to speak, Mr Roche, said that he would not waste money on people in socially deprived areas. That is not the issue. We must be concerned about the start that people get in life. The difficulty in society in the UK is that we accept that care starts at birth and finishes at age three, at which point the Minister of Education takes over. That should not be the case. There must be a seamless transition between care and education. People from deprived areas do not have the same opportunities, because not enough is done for them from birth to age three.
It has been proven in Scandinavian countries and elsewhere that a strategy for the years from birth to age six works. We should not put four-year-old children in school uniforms behind desks. It is submitted elsewhere that children should be taught how to interact through play — a measure that has not been adopted in our society. Failure to adopt such measures prevents working-class Protestants from attaining success.
Whether those on the Unionist Benches like it or not, I know that a person brought up in my community as a working-class Protestant or Loyalist or Unionist — whatever you wish to call it — has a one-in-eight chance of going to a grammar school. That is a social injustice. A person brought up on the Falls Road as a Republican or Nationalist has a one-in-three chance of going to a grammar school. There is something very wrong with that. Are people telling me that there is something genetically wrong with Protestants because they cannot achieve? That is what Mr Roche said. Given the opportunity, those people could achieve as much as anyone else. However, they are not given that opportunity, and we must address that issue.
Burns continually mentions pupil profiles. What use is a pupil profile to someone from north Belfast? Some 37% of 11-year-old Protestants in north Belfast have a reading age of nine. Numeracy and literacy must be dealt with between the ages of 0 and 6. The Burns Report alone will not solve the problem — other measures need to happen if progress is to be made.
Primary school teachers say that when children begin primary school they are not ready, and they blame the nursery teacher. The principals of secondary schools say that when children begin secondary school they are not ready and that they have a reading age of nine, when it should be 11. We have got it wrong, and we must correct it.
Members have been talking about selection at the age of 11 and the evidence for its effectiveness. When Sir Cyril Burt introduced selection, he had only anecdotal evidence — he had no empirical evidence to suggest that a child should be tested at the age of 11. Primary education covers a child’s formative years, and children must work in all-ability classes. Primary school teachers will say that their job is to teach children, but secondary school teachers will say that they teach subjects. We have got that wrong. The children should be at the centre of the system — they should decide where they go after primary school.
We have heard nonsense about grammar schools being vocational and everything else. Everyone in the Chamber knows that parents send their children to grammar schools because the children are academically bright and the parents want their children to achieve. People do not send their children to grammar schools to learn how to be joiners or bricklayers. Do not be kidded that the grammar schools will change. Those schools are elitist and exist for those pupils who perform best. Such schools do not want pupils who cannot achieve good grades or who will bring their results down. Grammar schools want only the best pupils, and we must focus on that issue.
It is important that we look at the source of the problems. If we do not do that, and if we do not address the matter of children’s early years, we shall not win. Burns has a discussion on the issue, but that is all that it should be. The report should be used to help us to get on to the right track. We should look at the Burns Report — especially from a Unionist point of view. We could throw the report out tomorrow, but we must address the problem of getting children from working-class backgrounds to achieve. We must also remember the statistics on the educational achievements of Catholics and Protestants, and ask why Catholics are doing better.
In north Belfast, 67% of Protestant children who leave school at the age of 16 do not have any formal educational qualifications. What does that say to people in that society?

Mr Norman Boyd: That the system is a failure.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Yes. However, it also tells young people that they have no future or stake in society. We must give them both. That is why we are here, and we must get it right. We must find out why Protestants are not achieving. We cannot say that it is because Catholics have more brains. There is more to it than that, and we must look into the problem. The last thing that we need is to condemn another generation of Protestants or Catholics to the scrap heap.
We should look at the Burns Report to see whether we can tweak it or whether we should throw it out and replace it with something different. We must come up with a system that does not have social injustice, because that is what the problem is about. It has nothing to do with the supposed trauma of the 11-plus — children can cope with sitting the 11-plus. The problem is that we are telling children that if they do not achieve, they will be put on the scrap heap. There is plenty of evidence of world leaders and others who did not pass such exams but went on to get university degrees.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member will draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: We must do away with selection.

Prof Monica McWilliams: This is the third time that we have debated the issue of post-primary education, and rightly so, as it is probably one of the most important issues that will arise during this term of the Assembly. How we educate our children and, indeed, what sort of society we want in Northern Ireland should be matters of incalculable importance to every single Member. Already in the Chamber there is a sense that people care. They care in different ways and, of course, have different views on the subject, which is surely what Burns is trying to get to the bottom of.
We should take the opportunity to reflect for a moment on the process so far. I suggest that it has been quite rigorous. Many comparisons were made in the reports that were prepared, and the Burns Report did not just base its analysis on what was happening in Northern Ireland. If we are to be in a global society, and if the Executive are about joined-up thinking, then it is quite right that the Burns Report looks not only at the UK, but at what is happening elsewhere in Europe. As a member of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I hear that there are serious issues about literacy and training. Therefore, if we are now talking about lifelong learning, perhaps that is what we need to address in post-primary education. If there are serious literacy problems let us address those.
Where do we start? Billy Hutchinson put forward some serious proposals. He talked about birth to three years of age, and the fact that we are sending our children to school far too early, which is a point that may not have been addressed sufficiently. Paddy Roche talked about children being at primary school for six years. However, some are only babies when they go through the school door. In other countries they would still be in kindergarten or nursery school, not sitting at desks with books and pencils being told that that is what faces them from then on. No wonder many want to run out the school gate. Many attend for the first day and, at the age of four, say: "Been there, done that, do not want to go back." That is what the Women’s Coalition would have liked to look at, but the terms of reference were so limited that we could only consider children between the ages of four and 11.
I have no doubt that other parties will take different things out of this, but in the end we must obtain some consensus and take most of the people with us as far as we can go. That is what change is all about. On that, I commend the Committee for Education, the Minister, and the Department for struggling with this issue. It is right to spend time on it, to give it a rigorous analysis and to come up with a genuine way forward.
The Women’s Coalition has already put its proposals to Burns, and I am not going to reiterate them — I have stated what we wish to see as the way forward. We endorse wholeheartedly the values of excellence, equality, inclusion and diversity on which Burns is based. I do not say for one minute that we hand our teachers the problem of trying to resolve this conflict. As Paddy Roche, Sammy Wilson and others have said, the problems of inequality in this society are not based solely on education. We have to look at all the factors that make people unequal — location, housing, family circumstances. That is where I take issue with Paddy Roche. No matter what one thinks about their parents, those children must be given a chance. I disagree with him about deprivation. Even if the parents are prisoners, or have committed acts in the past, that is not the fault of the children. We must build a society that gives those children a chance, and that is what Burns is trying to do. Equally, I suggest that the issue of diversity is one that should enrich a society and add to it.
Selection at the age of 11 is inappropriate. Others will disagree that it is unfair and discriminatory. Again, having listened to the points made by Paddy Roche and Sammy Wilson, I would suggest — and I thought that we had achieved some consensus in recent debates — that the test is not appropriate and that there must be some other way. Some Members may suggest that there should be another test, although others may suggest that it should not be taken at the age of 11. Burns suggested other possibilities, such as the compilation of profiles over several years.
Recent experience has shown me that we are teaching our children tricks when we show them how to complete those tests. Children with good memories will remember how to do the tests. The tests are multiple-choice, and children do not read books and receive the same literacy skills as other 11-year-olds who do not sit the tests. Teachers will say that half the primary 6 year and the first part of the primary 7 year are taken up with explaining the test to the children and having them complete tests over and over again until they are successful. Children who remember the tricks and who achieve 70% or 80% will pass; the others will not. The system had to change, and I thought that consensus was being achieved on that point.
We should welcome the proposal of guided parent and pupil choice at the appropriate stage of young people’s educational careers.
Our schools have not collaborated and co-operated in the past. Perhaps it is time for them to respond to the Burns proposals.
We have not had enough information about collegiates. Perhaps the Minister would provide more information when he speaks later. The issue is inflammatory, both inside and outside the education sector. A model has been proposed, which we might adapt in the future. However, can collegiates inject the dynamism, change, co-operation and collaboration needed? The proposal may come up against the churches, as we have seen in the past few days. Teachers’ unions have risen to the challenge and some businesses have also pledged support. My concern is that the issue is bigger than political identity. I would like to know if the churches would support the collegiate way forward.
Change is difficult, and I have said before that this may be an opportunity and not a threat. We may need a Burns 2 — if that does not sound too painful. I do not mean a scalding; I mean a proper, informed way that will ensure as much Assembly support as possible.

Mr Robert McCartney: The Burns Report contains a series of half-masticated, ill-digested concepts about the nature of education, clothed in the garb of dreamlike utopian language that is as nebulous as its ideas.
The truth is that the fundamental question that Burns addresses, and that we should address, is: what is the basic function of education? Is it to do our best for the individual child? That would certainly be the basis for education in the Western liberal tradition. The corollary of that — if the concern is what is best for the individual child — is equality of opportunity. Every child should have equality of opportunity, according to his or her several abilities. A child from a middle-class family who is bright and sharp and well suited to an academic education should have an academic education; a child from a working-class ghetto should have the same opportunity.
I can speak with authority on this subject, because I am the youngest of eight children, born in what is now designated a deprived area, the Shankill Road, and I lived in a two-up, two-down house. I passed the 11-plus examination in 1948, the year of its introduction. Subsequently I attended Grosvenor High School, which was the first local authority grammar school. Some 95% of the boys and girls who attended that school were from working-class homes; middle-class children were a rarity there, almost non-existent.
Therefore, I do not buy into any of this guff about the Shankill Road or about why it is deprived. One reason that north Belfast, the Shankill Road and other areas are deprived is that the community structure and family commitment have broken down. It is due to the flight of people who, in many cases, observed the principles of community, church and family life, and who were committed to the education of their children. Much of what we are seeing now has been brought about by the terrorism and political instability generated in those areas by the Minister of Education’s party and, to a large extent, those whom Billy Hutchinson would purport to represent. That is the reason: it has nothing to do with the education system.
However, there is another aspect to the subject, and it is the Minister of Education’s ideological drive, which is behind the Burns Report. Prof Simon, a noted Marxist and Communist, advanced the philosophy in the early 1960s that it is the purpose of education — and this brought about the comprehensive education system in the 1960s in the UK — to provide equality of results, not equality of opportunity. Equality of results was for the community. In Russia, it was for the state. People there were not educated on the basis of equal opportunity according to abilities; they were educated according to what the state required from them. People were educated on the basis of equality of results. That is the ideology that is driving this review.
Despite attempts to gloss over its results, comprehensive education has comprehensively failed on the mainland UK. It has failed in comparison with tripartite education. The improved GCSE results show that the biggest contribution, outside the grammar schools, in improvement has been from the secondary moderns — not from the comprehensives. When we look at a new system of education, we must look at one that provides equality of opportunity. The Burns proposals do not do so.
Children with the intellectual capacity to benefit from academic education should have that opportunity. They should have that opportunity whether they are working class, middle class or any other class. We are not equal. The 16-stone boy will never ride a Derby winner. The eight-stone, five-pound boy will never play in the front or second row for Ireland. Those are physical examples. The child with an IQ of 140 or 150 may well become a nuclear physicist or a neurological surgeon, but the child with an IQ of 80 or 90 will not.
We face a system where society has determined what is offered respect. Many parents would rather have their child working as a white-collar clerk in an insurance company when he has hands that can produce a Hepplewhite chair or a piece of Bellini silver. That is a condemnation of the values of our society. That is what we should be addressing. We should be ensuring that the academically qualified have an equal opportunity, and we should ensure that the child who has other skills and capacities for providing a real contribution to society should have the money, backing and educational system to allow his capacities to flower. Burns does not provide for that.

Mr Peter Weir: This is one of the most important issues that the Assembly has faced. Many charges have been levelled against Mr McCartney in his time but lack of intellectual ability has never been one of them. Had the Burns Report been available in 1948, Mr McCartney would not have gone to Grosvenor High School. It is doubtful whether, under the Burns Report, he would even have gone to a grammar school — so much for the enlightened Burns Report.
It is a pity that we are debating a report that has made such a mess of the offer that it brings for the future. I would describe it as a dog’s dinner, except that any discerning dog would be keen to avoid the mess described as the Burns Report.
Eileen Bell touched on the central issue: the most important point is what is in the best interests of the pupils. What lies behind the Burns Report, and, more importantly, what lies behind the Minister’s assessment of post-primary education, is not the best interests of the pupils, but pure and simple dogma. It is a desire to produce, in the Minister’s own words, equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.
Things start to go wrong when there is a driving dogma pushing a comprehensive system at the expense of what is in the best interests of pupils. At least the Minister has always been consistent on that point. The Burns Report even lacks that ideological and intellectual courage, because it tries to hide in a mist of proposals about collegiate systems and other bits of administration. It tries to disguise the fact that it is essentially a proposal to have comprehensive education via the back door. It lacks the honesty to at least argue the case for comprehensive education.
What are the problems that face the education system? They are clearly not the lack of academic achievement in Northern Ireland — we have been consistently above everywhere else in the United Kingdom. Compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, our system has produced the brightest and best. The argument has always been that, despite that, we are still producing the highest number of pupils with no qualifications. That may have been the case in the past.
However, the Minister’s figures — not figures from any pressure group — produced in response to a question for written answer from me, show that we now have fewer pupils leaving school with no qualifications than England, Scotland or Wales. Northern Ireland is not at the bottom end.
Is it, as a general rule, a fact that kids from working-class backgrounds have an overall lower level of attainment? There is a degree of truth in that. However, the number of people coming from working-class backgrounds in Northern Ireland and going on to third-level education is the highest in the United Kingdom. Those are not the problems.
It has been identified that we have low levels of attainment in certain parts of the country, especially in working-class areas. However, the key question is whether the Burns Report will solve those problems or whether it will exacerbate them. I think that it will exacerbate them. For example, take the pupil profiles, which will not be made available to schools. The Burns Report is being driven on the wishes of parents, and the level of ambition that parents have for their children, and the amount of drive and push involved. Anyone who thinks that that will benefit the socially disadvantaged is not living in the real world.
Where will the greatest push for children to go to grammar schools come from? It will come from areas of middle-class Northern Ireland where expectations are higher, and where there is a certain amount of social pressure on those children to attain grammar school places. Pupil profiles used in that way would exacerbate the problem.
We have not done away with selection. We have replaced it with selection by postcode — selection, ultimately, by ability to pay. The first two methods of selection are that if a sibling is at that grammar school, preference will be given, and if a child is the son or daughter of a teacher, he or she will get preference — presumably that is a device to keep the teaching unions as quiet as possible on the matter.
The Minister, who belongs to a party that feels itself so much in the modern world that it decries the hereditary monarchy and the hereditary system that was in the House of Lords, wants to have a system where we have hereditary places at grammar schools. If a child happens to be born into the right family and lives close to the school, that child will gain a place in a grammar school.
In reality, this will introduce a comprehensive system by the back door. Instead of creating a new egalitarian society, we will witness falling standards as were seen when comprehensive education was introduced in England and Wales. In addition, several schools will become independent. Grammar schools will ape what has happened in England, and they will move towards a public school system, in which selection will not be on the basis of academic ability, but on the basis of ability to pay. That is fundamentally wrong.
I, and many like me, come from a generation that had the opportunity to go to grammar school. That opportunity was not available to the generations before us. I ask people who have benefited from that system not to pull the ladder up behind them. Do not deprive people, particularly those from working-class backgrounds, of the opportunity to realise their full potential. Reject Burns; let us preserve what is best in the current system and look at what changes we can make to improve that system. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Given the number of Members who wish to speak and the time available, I ask all Members to limit their contributions to five minutes.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I see that I am to be a victim of your new declaration, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I wish to draw to the attention of the House the guiding principles in the Burns Report. Those of us who see little merit in the report are not suggesting that the present system is flawless. The report’s guiding principles are great in theory. However, the real test is in the outworking and application of those principles. Most of them have been at the heart of our education system for many years. No one would disagree with the principle of an education system that is child-centred, values children equally and gives breadth of opportunity to all the skills and talents that children possess. However, a close study of the great vision of Burns reveals that the principles are not as wholesome as was first thought. The revolution that the Burns Report will trigger will undoubtedly lead to a catastrophe. For example, the report proclaims:
"Each young person should be valued equally",
and that
"There should be equality of opportunity, access and excellence for all."
However, since the review proposals will potentially disadvantage the very best children academically, as well as most of the less able, these principles are turned on their head. The Burns recommendations mean that there will be less suitable opportunity, reduced access to the schools most suited to children’s needs and reduced opportunity for all sorts of excellence for most, if not all, children.
The report states:
"All young people should be enabled to develop their talents to the full".
It is obvious to everyone except the review body that owing to the impact of their new neighbourhood comprehensive schools, many academically able young people, especially those from outlying areas and the outskirts of large towns, will not be able to develop to the full. Equally, many children placed in academic schools are likely to suffer.
Another guiding principle suggests that schools should enable children to have a commitment to lifelong learning. Really? Perhaps there is a lifelong love within certain specialisms such as reading, language and mathematics. However, young people have no notion of lifelong learning at ages 16 or 18. What type of children have the Burns review members been teaching in the past 10 years? It would be interesting to find out. Perhaps the reason for such a lack of realism in education and school management terms is that it would appear that not one member of the panel has been a practising teacher during that time. Five of the 11 members of the review body have never taught at all. The rest have only been involved indirectly in the practice of teaching.
The report states:
"Education should have regard to the changing needs of society and the economy."
That is a partial truth.
There is a huge need for good doctors, accountants and lawyers, but there is an even greater need for good electricians, plumbers and mechanics. Burns does not begin properly to address the latter shortcoming. The notion that tradesmen and professionals can be developed satisfactorily side by side in all schools is a complete nonsense and impractical. That is not to value one profession higher than the other; it is simply to recognise a general truth that most teachers and pupils naturally recognise.
There are many things that I want to say about principles, but time is passing. I refer the Assembly to a research booklet by Dr John Marks, an academic. The booklet is in the Library if anyone would like to consult it. It makes interesting reading. His book ‘The Betrayed Generations: Standards in British Schools 1950-2000’ shows how for many decades the comprehensive system has failed in the four parts of the UK to provide children with as good an education as that which Northern Ireland’s children have been fortunate to receive.
The main findings of his research are that pupils in comprehensive schools make up 85% of the age group but they obtain 75% of good GCSE passes. At A level, the proportion of passes by comprehensive school pupils falls to about 65%, and the proportion of A grades that they gain falls to about 50%. The results for selective schools taken together throughout GB are about 35% better than those for comprehensive schools. That indicates substantial underachievement by many comprehensive schools, and perhaps a further 60,000 pupils would achieve good GCSEs if GB had a selective system. At GCSE level, 25% of comprehensive schools perform less well than the average secondary modern school.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I will begin by speaking as the Committee Chairperson. No one could argue with the proposition that we should treat education from the age of 11 through to either 18 or 21 and beyond as an integral whole. The creation of a Department of Education that is separate from the Department for Employment and Learning has probably, on balance, been a good development that has provided greater focus in both cases. However, it has brought with it greater scope for creating cross-departmental concerns. The Burns issues touch on such cross-departmental matters of importance. The Committee for Employment and Learning will wish to comment on the Burns Report. I cannot prejudge what conclusion it will come to, but our consideration is likely to include the following: where and how careers education can best be delivered; how we can widen the range of social access to further and higher education; how we can promote educational equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcome — Mr McCartney drew that distinction; and the valid principle of meritocracy. Finally, how can we encourage the study of subjects by 11- to 16-year-olds or possibly through to 18 years, which will equip individuals for satisfying careers and will meet some of the likely labour skills shortages?
I will now make some personal comments, while still focusing on the interrelationship between the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning, because some real weaknesses emerge in the recommendations of the Burns Report. The case has not yet been adequately made to suggest that we should move to mixed-ability or comprehensive schools. It has not been made in moral or pragmatic terms with respect to examination results, and Mr Morrow referred to this when mentioning the statistics produced by Dr John Marks in his book about schools in England, Scotland and Wales over the last half century.
The Burns Report, despite what it may claim, is inclined towards the practical introduction of comprehensive schooling. I favour the retention of some schools that have a so-called grammar school ethos, while upgrading others through so-called parity of esteem, especially technical and vocational schools. In parts of Germany, Switzerland and Austria, those schools have developed more strongly than they have in the United Kingdom. More than mere academic excellence is required. Excellence is best promoted by having a variety of specialist schools rather than — dare I say it? — bog-standard comprehensives. Practices in city technology colleges in England and in the magnet schools in the larger American cities should be examined.
The concept of collegiates is problematic, because that would add another layer of bureaucracy to an overcrowded field of administrative bodies. It is not envisaged that further education colleges would be full members of the collegiates, but they would have to interrelate. That would be confusing. The Burns Report recommends that collegiates should promote the crucial links between education and business, and that they should take the lead on careers education. That could turn into a turf war over the role of further education colleges. There are still serious funding inequities between further education colleges and sixth-form colleges.
The Minister of Education and his Colleague at the Department for Employment and Learning have much to discuss. I support the motion.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am aware that Dr Birnie has an important appointment and that he may have to rush off.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Although there have been different reactions to the Burns Report in the Chamber, I welcome the fact that beyond the Chamber there is general agreement about the proposal to abolish the transfer test. I am encouraged by other proposals in the Burns Report — for example, the introduction of pupil profiles and the promotion of greater co-operation between schools in the post-primary sector.
Before the Burns Report was published, Prof Gallagher and Prof Smith conducted a review of the selection procedure. I will recap quickly on some of the options that they identified as a possible way forward: separate academic and vocational schools; comprehensive schools for 11- to 18-year-olds; and common lower secondary schools followed by a differentiation at upper level in secondary schools. The Burns team analysed those options and was unhappy with all of them. Regardless of our views about the Burns Report, at least it contained a definite proposal that could be discussed. I hope that that proposal, and the options in the Gallagher and Smith Report, will help to inform responses to the Department of Education.
Paragraph 6.3 of the Burns Report, which deals with modern research on intelligence, is important. It states that the idea of intelligence being measured narrowly is no longer valid; that cannot be denied. Intelligence is seen as having many facets, and multifaceted intelligence is referred to. In the past, transfer tests assessed intelligence in a narrow and academic way, which limited our view of children and their abilities and aptitudes. If we introduced pupil profiles, the measurement of multifaceted intelligence would pose a major challenge, and unfortunately the Burns Report does not go into detail on that. However, before it is introduced we need to know more about the demands that will be placed on children and teachers by the additional assessment of all facets of education.
The element relating to structures and the collegiate system is probably the most controversial part of the report. In its response, the SDLP suggested greater co-operation between schools, so we welcome some of the aspects that are highlighted under the collegiate system. We want to see all post-primary schools working together on the basis of co-operation rather than competition. We are told that the proposals in the Burns Report do not threaten any of the existing schools, yet, as we know, many schools are not reassured and do not accept this. Currently, responsibility for managing schools rests with local management boards and the governors appointed to them. They have control over the values and the ethos of the schools, and many give their time and expertise to provide good education for the children in their areas. Under the Burns Report, they see their roles being downgraded in favour of the collegiate support system and the collegiate liaison councils. Although I support partnerships, I do not support any that undermine the roles or existing rights of school management boards.
In conclusion, we should bear in mind that in the past all good initiatives in education — and there have been few over the years — have come from the teachers. Imposition has almost invariably resulted in failure, and the experience of our educators testifies to that.

Ms Mary Nelis: The motion is not set in stone. We will be able to challenge the existing transfer system, which most of us accept is a legal form of discrimination that brands 60% of our children as failures every year; a system that reinforces educational and social apartheid; and one that was founded on the elitist notion that only a minority of children are academically gifted and that a child’s ability is fixed at the age of 10, or perhaps at the age of four, as Billy Hutchinson and Monica McWilliams said. The current system is a more accurate gauge of poverty and wealth than many of the statistics presented to us. Billy Hutchinson is right in saying that the worst results in the 11-plus exams each year are from the poorest areas of Belfast — the Shankill Road and the Falls Road. This system is emotionally, socially and culturally damaging, and it must go.
I congratulate the Minister for his commitment to the future education of all children and for providing us with the opportunity to end this divisive system, once and for all. We pay dearly for it. Research shows that educational underachievement is linked to poverty, unemployment, ill health and other social disasters. Our two-tier education system tells a long tale of underachievement, and an excessive number of people leave school with few or no qualifications. The system keeps a section of people in poverty and preserves a cycle of disadvantage, and we pay dearly for it. The exact cost has not been calculated, and it is time that it was.
In the Twenty-six Counties, the economic consequences for early school leavers are manifest at individual and social levels. There is an increased likelihood of long-term unemployment, low-skilled and poorly paid employment, and social and economic marginalisation. In Canada, additional expenditure on remedial programmes to help cope with social problems affecting the aboriginal people is costing the Government £1·7 billion. Are we aware of what we spend on remedial programmes? Equivalent research has not yet been carried out here.
If we continue to condone a two-tier education system that labels children at ten and a half and divides them from each another on mainly socio-economic grounds, some young people will destroy themselves and their environment, such will be their disaffection and hopelessness.
Many myths have been propagated about how the grammar school system is superior to comprehensive education, and some Members have suggested that today. The first myth is that the comprehensive system has failed in England. There are 3,569 secondary schools in England, of which 166 are grammar schools. Eighty-seven per cent of secondary pupils in state schools in England are in comprehensive schools. There are no grammar schools in Scotland and Wales. In 1965, when 8% of secondary pupils were in comprehensive schools, 17% acquired five passes at GCSE level. By 1998, when 86·7% were in comprehensive schools, 88% got five passes at GCSE level. Many young people attending comprehensive schools stay on and go to university.
The second myth is that Burns will be implemented without proper consultation, and that these beacons of excellence, the grammar schools, may be closed. The Burns Report is not about closing schools; it is about creating excellent schools in every neighbourhood for all children. All schools now have a common curriculum and pupil-led funding, and that will not change if grammar schools admit local children rather than selecting. Many secondary schools are beacons of excellence — there can be excellence without selection.
Another myth is that there should be a mix of grammar schools and other schools because we need choice and diversity. Supporters of selection must justify the need to put children through the hurdle of selection when there is no evidence that selection provides the best educational opportunities for all children.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Much of what needs to be said about the Burns Report has already been covered.
Of the many representations that I have received, not one supported the Burns Report. In fact, a large organisation such as the Ulster Farmers’ Union felt compelled to respond with comments that have been echoed in the Chamber today. That group represents about 25,000 families. The proposals will disadvantage children in rural areas, and we do not want that. The Burns Report has no rural perspective.
The current selection procedure may be wrong, but selection itself is not wrong. Pupil profiles are a possible alternative. The admission criterion of proximity to pupils’ homes is unacceptable. The proposal that pupils may be moved from different schools in a collegiate to study alternative subjects is theoretically possible, but that would be impractical for rural schools. The suggestion has been made that there may be a rise in the number of independent schools, but low farming incomes would not allow children from many farming families to attend such schools. The return of technical colleges should be considered.
Members of the Education Committee have received hundreds of responses that contain similar echoes of concern. It has been clearly stated that the principle of comprehensive education is based on a theory of egalitarianism. Venerable theologians would have it that people are equal only in that they are all equally sinners. However, the ideas of Marx and Engels have emerged. Mr McCartney and Sammy Wilson identified the issue that pervades the Burns Report. The burning issue, which is implied but never stated, is not equality of opportunity; it is equality of outcomes. The Minister made that telling point in his press release.
All the research, especially that of Dr John Marks, has indicated that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) studies offered a comparator of existing tripartite and comprehensive systems. The research carried out by the OECD and John Marks, as well as national research on education, indicates that comprehensive education is a deterrent to the raising of school standards. Therefore, the report’s basic tenets are wrong. Not only is the report wrong in principle but it follows a political ideology that has been abandoned by most of Europe.
The Burns Report mentioned that it had examined the tripartite system operating in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. The OECD examined that system and said that it was in advance of any system in the British Isles, and that its pathways were suitably tailored to the needs of the pupil.
I was touched by Billy Hutchinson’s point that the report should have been child-centred. The Burns Report is not child-centred; it is centred on an outdated Marxist ideology that has long been surpassed by educational thinking. I most detest Burns’s resorting to jargon, which implies that he was scared to define his position. He never spelt out the philosophical alternatives that are possible in education. Instead, he resorted to jargon. As Archbishop Temple reminded us in a worthy report in the House of Lords, if a man does not define something, the definition remains with him.

Mr Ken Robinson: I have no intention of repeating the excellent points made already. I want to focus on the consultation on the Burns Report. I have observed, with growing concern, the manner in which the Minister of Education has led the consultation process on the Burns proposals. Although everyone has a right to express their views on that contentious report, a Minister of Education should have exercised prudence when overseeing the public debate that the proposals were designed to provoke, as they have done today in a generally positive way.
In fact, the Minister has sought to adopt a different role. In a series of unfortunate and imprudent statements, he has sought to steer the process and to spin the outcome of that steer. Meetings have been held with carefully selected individuals and interest groups. On 1 March 2002, while speaking at the annual Irish National Teachers’ Organization (INTO) conference, with the subtext "academic selection means rejection", the Minister told delegates that he had identified what he claimed were two myths, one of which was that academic selection was a ladder to success for working-class children.
Speaking as someone who comes from a working-class background — as do many others in the Chamber — I am glad that that ladder was there for me and others, to climb, and that my parents felt that it was worth sacrificing many things to enable me to climb it. I am grateful that it was there for my children to avail themselves of. I hope that my grandchildren can benefit from similar opportunities in the future.
If low percentages of working-class pupils currently benefit from that opportunity in parts of the Province, could it be possible that the extra-curricular activities indulged in by the Minister’s Colleagues over the past 30 years played a significant part in driving families out of inner-city areas? Those were families who in a normal society would have sacrificed many pleasures to give their children the gift of a good education and who would have provided the real leadership in those communities, had they not felt it necessary to protect their children from the unfolding scenario of violence and intimidation.
A girl whose family lived in a Nationalist area of Belfast recently told me that the only good thing that her father could ensure was that she got a good education that was commensurate with her obvious academic talents. He made sacrifices, and his daughter received a top-class education alongside the offspring of the better-heeled members of her community. She currently holds a senior position in her chosen career. I asked her whether she would deny that opportunity to others. "No way" was the answer. I recall many parents from my former schools who worked hard — often taking on a second job — to ensure that their child would have all the necessary extras that second-level schools require from their new entrants.
On 23 March 2002, the Minister met the Progressive Unionist Party to discuss the post-primary review. The Minister again trotted out his usual mantras, only this time he added the Republican harp orchestra’s rendition of "Protestants, Catholics and Dissenters". It is good myth, but it is bad educational practice. The Minister has introduced a sectarian edge to his tired, worn-out, oversimplified and outdated 1970s-style socialism, which was something that I noticed in yesterday’s Hansard that he attributed to another Member of the House. That tiresome dialectic may have struck a chord with his Loyalist audience, as no doubt it was designed to do.
The Minister’s strategy — and he has had some practice at that over the years — may have equipped him in his "divide and conquer" role, but I ask him the inconvenient question of where the good families who lived on the Shankill Road and the Crumlin Road, and who provided numerous transfer pupils for nearby schools, did move to. Who or what caused those families, who were the backbone and pride of their communities, to leave? Was that population movement not echoed in west Belfast by families also seeking a better future for their children? Interestingly, the Minister’s press release fails to tell us the views of the PUP representatives. Perhaps Mr Billy Hutchinson was expanding on that today.
On 8 April, the pace was quickening because presumably the Minister and his acolytes were aware of the mounting popular distaste for the whole business of the unfolding Burns saga. The education and library board chiefs were treated to ministerial mantras. However, in their valedictory statement, the chief executives, to their credit, pointed out that they were anxious to see coherence among all three major reviews of education — the review of funding, the review of the curriculum and the review of post-primary education.
I agree with Mr Billy Hutchinson’s comments on the nought to three-years-old aspect of children’s education. The early years are a vital part of the process, and it is one that will be addressed shortly by the Committee for Education. To the chief executives, Burns was only one of three issues, and not the great cure-all —

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Ken Robinson: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall leave my comments hanging in the air at that point.

Mr Mark Robinson: I would like to begin by thanking my Colleague Mr Sammy Wilson for tabling today’s debate. We are dealing with education, which has affected every single one of us at some stage in our lives and will continue to do so through our children.
It is an extremely emotive issue, and I am not surprised at the feelings that have been generated, particularly among concerned parents and teachers. I have been inundated with calls and correspondence from parents and teachers, asking that I use my position as an elected representative to highlight the many deficiencies in the report. I hope that through this debate I can convey these concerns. Yes, we need a vision for the future, but I do not think that the majority of parents or teachers would subscribe to the vision laid out in the Burns Report.
I do agree that the current system of selection is far from perfect, but the solutions set out in the Burns Report offer a very poor alternative. In his report, Burns makes no attempt whatsoever to answer the key question: does comprehensive or selective education provide the best overall results? He has failed to grasp that the comprehensive system has actually reduced educational opportunities on the mainland whilst the system in Northern Ireland has moved from strength to strength.
This document does not provide the way forward. Schools in Northern Ireland have undoubtedly proved their worth in every way. The education system in Northern Ireland is recognised throughout the United Kingdom, and examination passes bear testament to this fact. Our post-primary structure has produced the best results in the whole of the United Kingdom. More importantly, not only for those children who go to grammar schools, but for those who attend secondary schools, there is a mass of statistical evidence that shows that separating children according to their educational ability and needs enables schools to stretch the more academically able and cater more effectively for those with different aptitudes. The superior performance of the selective system in Northern Ireland over the comprehensive system in England in terms of GCSE and A-level performance, once again, would bear this out.
We have an education system in Northern Ireland that has many strengths, but I do acknowledge that certain weaknesses exist, and those weaknesses must be addressed if we are to create an education system that benefits each and every single child.
There have been considerable changes in the education system in Northern Ireland as a result of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, particularly in relation to the national curriculum. The introduction of the national curriculum instructed all schools, whether grammar or secondary, to follow the same curriculum. This meant that pupils who moved from primary school to secondary school would be offered the same examinations as those pupils attending grammar schools. This effectively enabled secondary school pupils to follow a path to third-level education.
Secondary schools in Northern Ireland have been very successful at meeting the needs of a very distinct range of abilities. They have been able to facilitate this through applying the concept of streaming classes according to ability, with a flexible aspect in place to allow pupils to move up and down according to attainment. This has ensured that all pupils, regardless of ability, have received an education that is tailored to their needs.
In Northern Ireland, we cannot provide a twenty-first- century education for all by destroying the best part of our system and offering a watered-down alternative. We need a solution that provides a different system, allowing for both vocational and academic schools. It could be said that our present system does not cater adequately for the non-academic, so we must therefore direct our energies to providing vocational and technical education for those children whose talents lie elsewhere than in academic study.
Burns goes on to examine the collegiate system. The collegiate system in fact replicates a comprehensive system, which, as I have already stated, has reduced educational opportunities on the mainland. The collegiate system is unwieldy and bureaucratic. The collegiate system is unworkable, as it groups together schools of dissimilar ethos, religious affiliation and academic standard. This system is also yet to be proven. Why introduce a system that has not yet been tested? Effectively, Burns is using Northern Ireland as a guinea pig, which could, in fact, produce disastrous results. We cannot afford to get this wrong, as we are dealing with the education of our children.

Mr Edwin Poots: No two children are the same. All children are born with different abilities. Some are prepared to work harder to achieve their goals, but the goal of education is to bring out the best in all children and bring out the best of their abilities.
I am surprised that the Minister, who professes a "Brits out" attitude in everything else that he does, when it comes to education he wants to ape the failed English system and introduce comprehensive education to Northern Ireland through the back door. The comprehensive system in England has failed. At the age of 14, pupils in Northern Ireland’s selective system are 18 months ahead of pupils in England in English and mathematics, and they achieve GCSE results that are 10% better than those of pupils in England. That shows that the selective system is better for all pupils, for those at widely underrated secondary schools as well as for those at grammar schools. Before comprehensive education, A-level results in Northern Ireland were lower than those in England, yet shortly after the introduction of comprehensive education, Northern Ireland’s A-level passes exceeded those of England and have continued to do so ever since.
The changeover to comprehensive schools has led to the following shortfalls in England: each year, approximately 60,000 16-year-olds, who would otherwise do well, fail to achieve five or more GCSEs. Approximately 80,000 18-year-olds, who would otherwise do well, fail to achieve two or more A levels. The increased access to universities for working-class students up until 1960, primarily due to grammar schools, has gone into reverse with the spread of comprehensive education. Some 31% of working-class pupils go to university in Northern Ireland, compared with 23% in Scotland, England and Wales. The selective system appears to enable pupils from the lower social classes in Northern Ireland to achieve better GCSE and A-level results and to obtain more university places than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Taken together and compared with comprehensive schools, selective schools perform 37% better in maths, 27% better in English language, 28% better in science subjects, 32% better in geography and 70% better in French. Taking an average of all the main subjects, the advantage is approximately 35% in favour of selective schools.
Teachers and parents ask why there was not one practising school principal on the review body who had hands-on expertise in the daily running of schools. Why does Burns not report that 85% of respondents want grammar schools to remain while wishing to see an end to the 11-plus tests? Why impose a completely untried system unheard of anywhere in the civilised world? Should our children be punished in such a way? Why should our children be thus disadvantaged? How collegiates will work is unclear; history shows that children perform best alongside children of similar aptitude.
Why is pastoral care omitted from the report? It is a recognised fact that the percentage of Northern Ireland boys and girls achieving fewer than five GCSEs has dropped in the past five years to 3%. That performance is significantly better than in other areas with similar socio-economic conditions.
Billy Hutchinson’s views reflect those of some in the Unionist community. No one makes points to reflect the views of a significant number in the Nationalist community who want to retain grammar schools and a selective system. Shame on the Nationalist representatives in the Chamber that they do not represent the views of their people, many of whom have had to come to us to have their views expressed.
I regret that this is turning into a Unionist versus Nationalist debate, because the matter transcends constitutional politics, Unionism and Nationalism. The debate is universal, and it is a shame that Nationalists have not represented the views of the many who send their children to grammar schools and who wish to retain the grammar school system.
I went to a grammar school, but we chose a secondary school for our first child in spite of his having achieved a grade that would have secured him a place in a grammar school. We sent him to a school that would best suit his needs. We must look sensibly at the selective system and allow children to be assessed by their academic ability and not by postcode.

Mr Jim Shannon: I agree with my two Colleagues and with Mr Sammy Wilson, the mover of the motion. His contribution set the scene for the debate and summed up the feelings of many in the Province, certainly of those in the community that I represent. The Minister of Education is making a huge error of judgement. He is advocating a comprehensive system of education, similar to the one across the water. That system has failed miserably and has resulted in lower educational standards.
We have a system in Northern Ireland that has produced the best results in the whole of the United Kingdom for pupils in secondary and grammar schools. My Colleague Edwin Poots graphically outlined the successes of each education sector and how Northern Ireland seems to be streets ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a fact that 56% of pupils in Northern Ireland are achieving five or more GCSEs. On the UK mainland, the average is just 48%. At the other end of the spectrum, the Northern Ireland figure for those leaving school with no qualifications is much lower than the UK average. It is 3·5% in Northern Ireland and 6% on the UK mainland.
Even though the figures prove that our education system is well and working, it is the Minister’s opinion that a working system needs changing without investigating the alternatives. The Minister is out of touch with the people of the Province and out of touch with what they wish to have. I am a parent. I have three boys who have gone through, or are in the process of going through, the education system. The system has worked well for them, and it has worked well for most people in the Chamber today. Those who claim that the post-primary education system is failing are talking nonsense. Some 35% of children go to grammar schools, and a further 35% of pupils from a working-class background in Northern Ireland — the background that I come from — go on to university. That compares favourably with the situation in England and the rest of the UK.
I accept that some changes are needed in order to modernise the system and to bring it into line with other excelling countries in Europe. Transfer should be deferred until the age of 12. We could perhaps have a transfer test carried out by way of continual assessment, instead of two examinations, the results of which depend on the mood or condition of the child on a given day.
Post-primary schools are redefining themselves all the time, and they should be encouraged to do so. They should offer academic, vocational and technical courses. In that way, we can reduce the number of children who are leaving school with no qualifications. Such courses would also reduce the number of truants — those pupils who stay away from school because they cannot handle the academia, but who are suited to hands-on student work. Students should be able to transfer between schools. We often find that grammar school children drop out at the age of 16. They have passed the 11-plus but have, for one reason or another, not got to grips with what grammar schools have on offer. Many schools in rural areas — and Craigavon is an example of this — have a school that provides all-through education for children. That provides stability, and many friendships are maintained throughout school life because the cut-off at age 11 does not take place. The system works well for students, teachers and parents.
Some bureaucrat who has not investigated the full implications of changing the system should not be able to interfere with it. The aim should be to protect the best and improve the rest. We should not let the Minister destroy the whole lot simply because it is a British system. He is opposed to anything that has even a hint of Britishness about it. His views have more to do with politics than educational standards.
The Minister is at odds with the Committee for Education, the schools and the greater number of pupils, teachers and parents, and he should consider the motion proposed today and the comments that Members have made. The Minister’s opinion is at odds with the views of the people.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity afforded by Sammy Wilson’s motion to discuss the review of post-primary education. I agree with Peter Weir that it is currently the most important issue facing the education sector. Many contributions have been made today. Many have been thoughtful, although some were not so thoughtful. Overall, it has been a good debate, and I have no doubt that there are people on all sides of the argument who hold sincere views. However, the object of the exercise is to build consensus and ensure that the House and all political representatives recognise the challenge before us. We politicians have a huge responsibility to put in place the best possible education system for all our children.
We have been given a real opportunity to put in place post-primary arrangements that will meet our needs in the twenty-first century and that will equip our young people and future generations with the knowledge and skills that they need in a rapidly changing and increasingly global world. As we engage in the debate, we are all obliged to ensure that we are properly informed and that our arguments are based on facts and data rather than on myths.
Yesterday in the House I referred to the three great myths about our education system, and we have heard more of that today. The first myth is that we have a world-class education system that is the best in these islands. Mary Nelis spoke eloquently on that myth. I am the first to acknowledge that we have a high proportion of pupils who achieve good examination results, yet comparisons show that as many pupils in Scotland achieve five high-grade GCSEs in its comprehensive system. Scotland also has markedly more people entering higher education. More people here than in England achieve five high-grade GCSEs, but even England, which is often caricatured as having a failed comprehensive system, has fewer pupils who do not achieve five GCSE passes. We still have the highest proportion of children in these islands with low qualifications, and that is the long tail of low achievement that has been highlighted by research.
Paddy Roche referred to international comparisons, as did Robert McCartney, Peter Weir and Edwin Poots. I remind Members that recent international research into standards found that, among 15-year-olds, our pupils performed on a par with pupils in England and Scotland, but did substantially less well than the top performers. Where were the top performers? They were in Finland, South Korea, New Zealand and Canada, all of which have non-selective systems. When people talk about comparisons, they must take a broader view and consider that there is a bigger world outside England, Scotland and Wales, and, indeed, here. We must recognise that other systems in the world are doing well, and we have a responsibility to look at that and learn lessons.
More critically, the variation in our best and worst scores was among the widest in the participating countries, which highlights the recurrent theme of an education system with high achievement and substantial low achievement — a system that performs well for some but poorly for the rest. The 1996 International Adult Literacy Survey found that almost one quarter of our adult workforce has the lowest level of literacy. That legacy has been left to us by our so-called world-class education system, and the sooner we wake up to that, the better.
The second myth is that academic selection provides a ladder to success for working-class and disadvantaged children. Peter Weir, Bob McCartney and Ken Robinson dealt with that. Bob McCartney was particularly disappointing when he repeated that point in what I thought was an intellectually barren and narrow-minded contribution. We must look at the facts. Under our current system of academic selection, children from low-income families make up only 8% of pupils in grammar schools, and that proportion has fallen in the past four years. Far from being a ladder for working-class children, academic selection is an increasingly slippery pole.
Consider the transfer test results: the least disadvantaged pupils who sit the 11-plus are almost three times as likely to achieve a grade A as the most disadvantaged pupils. That hardly supports the case for academic selection as an escape route from poverty.
Which group in our society achieves the worst results in academic selection? The answer, which may be unpalatable, is the most disadvantaged sections of the Protestant community. The poorest 11-plus results are achieved in controlled schools with high levels of free school meals that serve working-class Protestant areas. David Ervine and Billy Hutchinson of the Progressive Unionist Party told me that, in many working-class Protestant areas, a grammar school place is beyond the reach of almost all pupils. In the Shankill, less than 2% of pupils gain a grammar school place. If that is not a damming indictment, I do not know what is.
The proportion of pupils from the most disadvantaged controlled primary schools in other areas of Belfast who obtain a grammar school place is also appallingly low — 4% in west Belfast, 5% in east Belfast, 8% in north Belfast and 15% in south Belfast. Those figures demolish the myth that academic selection provides a ladder to success for disadvantaged children, especially in Protestant communities.
Members raised an important and perplexing matter, which I responded to during Question Time yesterday, that has not yet been satisfactorily answered. In the light of those disturbing figures, why do the main Unionist parties support the continuation of an academically selective system that impacts most negatively on disadvantaged Protestant communities?
That is an issue for those parties to consider, but I shall make my position, as Minister of Education, clear. Some Members may dispute it, but it is sincerely held. I want fairness and better educational opportunities for all children, whether they live on the Falls Road or the Shankill Road, in the Bogside or the Waterside, in Crossmaglen or Portadown, regardless of their colour or creed, whether they are well off or disadvantaged, and whatever their abilities. Every child must be given the opportunity to succeed. I shall work to ensure that the new arrangements deliver that opportunity.
Someone said recently that the idea that every child can succeed is a myth. I totally disagree with that. As educationalists, we have a responsibility to create an education system in which every child can succeed and fulfil his or her full potential. During the debate, Mr Shannon said that we should keep the best and improve the rest. I want the best for everyone, regardless of where they live or who they are.
The third myth is that, in order to go to university and get a good job, a grammar school education is necessary. Traditionally, grammar schools have been the main providers of university entrants. However, the world moves on. Currently, 35% of pupils obtain places in grammar schools, yet the participation rate in higher education is much greater at 44%, and is projected to increase. A place in higher education is not dependent on a grammar school education now and will be even less so in the future.
Prof Gerry McKenna, vice-chancellor of the University of Ulster, told me that only approximately 50% of its students have traditional A levels, with the rest coming from a variety of routes. Significantly, the university found no difference in academic outcome, irrespective of the route that students had taken. Prof George Bain, vice-chancellor of Queen’s University, informed me that many of its students, including some of the best, did not follow the traditional A-level route.
The facts do not support the three great myths, which are that we have a world-class education system, academic selection is a ladder to success for working-class children, and grammar schools are an essential route to entry to higher education and university.
Local research has strongly confirmed the clear and pressing need for change. Prof Gallagher and Prof Smith found that the current arrangements distort the primary curriculum and create a sense of failure in two thirds of our children. I heard about that sense of failure this morning when I met with representatives of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) in Belfast.
We have schools that do not achieve good results. In addition, disadvantaged children come from low-income families and cause unnecessary pressure and anxiety. Our discussions this morning focused on those issues. When the people around the table spoke of their experiences with colleagues in colleges in this city, a great deal of pain and hurt was revealed.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr J Wilson] in the Chair)
Prof John Gardner’s research highlighted the technical inadequacy of the 11-plus. Save the Children used children’s own words to make the most powerful case for change. I have been criticised by some people for quoting them, but we must listen to what children tell us. I make no apology for repeating their views. Commenting on the test, one child said:
"I felt so nervous on the morning of the 11-plus I was nearly sick. I barely got to sleep the night before and when I did I woke up at 3.00 am to find myself sleepwalking. I never sleepwalk and to make matters worse I was changing into my uniform. I didn’t want to eat my breakfast in case I threw up but Mum made me eat some."
Another child gave her view on the test, and she said, most tellingly:
"If you’re smart you go to a grammar school but if you’re stupid you go to a secondary school and that’s where I’m going, to a secondary school because … I’m stupid."
The complete absurdity of the 11-plus was succinctly expressed by another child when she said:
"People judge you by 2 hours in your life."
I ask Members how they would feel if their children said that to them. I cannot and will not accept educational arrangements that make children sick with nerves, make them feel stupid and that judge them on two hours of their lives. There must be change, and I am pleased that the Committee for Education agrees. In its report, the Committee concluded that change is both necessary and appropriate. I have been encouraged greatly by the almost unanimous agreement that change is needed and by the shift in the debate from the question of whether change is necessary to what kind of change is needed.
Billy Hutchinson hit the nail on the head — his contribution was thoughtful and knowledgeable, and his remarks about social justice were well made. He also addressed the issue of early intervention, which is important. I agree that there is a need for early intervention and support, and the Department of Education has already undertaken some initiatives: the pre-school education system has been greatly expanded; the Making a Good Start initiative was established; classroom assistants have been employed for primary 1 classes, and that provision has been extended to primary 2 classes in the most deprived schools. The local management of schools (LMS) common funding formula will skew more of the available funding towards the primary sector, and the review of the curriculum that is under way will examine what children learn and when they learn it. All those matters are important.
The Burns proposals that were published for consultation in October 2001 set out one possible model for change, and I must address several misconceptions about the consultation process. First, it is important to stress that no decisions have been taken about the proposals. Some people think that this is a done deal; nothing could be further from the truth.
Secondly, the choice is not between the Burns proposals, in their entirety, and nothing. The Burns Report offers one way forward, but it may not be the only way. Therefore, I have invited comments on the Burns Report and asked for suggestions for modifications to the report, or alternative approaches.
Thirdly, there is a view that there is no point in responding to the consultation because no one is interested in what people have to say and that Ministers will simply make decisions anyway. That may have been how things were done in the past, but we now have a local Administration and Ministers who are accountable to the electorate. Everyone’s views count.
The publication of the Burns Report has generated a huge and ongoing public debate, and it is useful to take stock of how the debate is developing. Despite the impression that is often given through the media, significant areas of consensus are emerging on the guiding principles that underpin the Burns proposals, particularly the view that each child should be valued equally, the abolition of the transfer test, the value of the pupil profile and the value of collaboration and co-operation between schools.
There are also areas of contention, and, in seeking to advance the debate, I have stressed the need to focus on academic selection. This is central to the shape of any new arrangements, and Oliver Gibson referred to this crucial issue.
There is a view that the 11-plus can simply be abolished — clearly this cannot happen unless another process of academic selection is put in its place or academic selection is abolished. The review body made clear its view that simply to replace the test with another form of academic selection would perpetuate many of the weaknesses of the present arrangements. The 11-plus and academic selection are inextricably linked. The sole reason for the 11-plus is to provide a means of academic selection for grammar schools. The issue is not about the test but about academic selection, and we must be clear on this. Academic selection for some means academic rejection for most of our children. We must all look beyond the symptom — dissatisfaction with the 11-plus — to the cause, which is academic selection and rejection. That is what the debate must be about. I welcome the growing concentration on this key issue in public discussions, and I am holding meetings with interested parties to discuss the issues raised by the post-primary review.
Esmond Birnie referred to the need for a cross-departmental approach, and I welcome the interest of the Committee for Employment and Learning. I have already met representatives of higher and further education, the chief executives of all five boards, the main teachers’ unions, the CCMS, the Progressive Unionist Party, and the Belfast partnerships. Some consistent views have been expressed, including a general recognition that there are serious problems with our education system and a widespread acceptance of the adverse effects of academic selection, which is considered to be socially divisive. CCMS, the five main teachers’ unions, the vice-chancellors, further education principals, the Belfast partnerships and the Progressive Unionist Party all agreed that academic selection should end, and the boards want a system that puts children at the heart of the process. The same strong message was given to the Education Committee and is set out in its report. It states:
"A clear majority of those submitting evidence to the review stated that formal selection as currently organised in Northern Ireland should be abolished."
I have planned further meetings with principals of primary schools, Catholic and controlled grammar schools, NICIE (Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education), NICVA (Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action), the Transferor Representatives’ Council and my Colleague at the Department for Employment and Learning. I have also written to the other political parties inviting them to discuss the review, and I hope that they will all accept this invitation.
A meeting has also been arranged with the Governing Bodies Association (GBA), and I look forward to hearing its perspective. I have welcomed its statements supporting the need for change. The GBA has concerns about the Burns proposals but has given a commitment to identify an acceptable method of happily matching pupils to schools. This is a positive and responsible approach, but time is moving on, and no proposals have yet been produced. If the GBA has developed acceptable proposals, I urge it to make them available for public scrutiny and consideration as soon as possible, certainly before the end of the consultation period.
The recent statement by the Northern bishops was a crucial contribution to the debate. They are the trustees of the majority of Catholic-managed grammar and secondary schools, which represent almost half our post-primary schools. They have given a clear message to the whole of the Catholic-managed school sector that academic selection by testing at age 11 or later is not acceptable. The bishops stated that pupils and parents, guided by teachers and career guidance counsellors using continuous assessment, should make decisions about educational pathways on the basis of election and choice. The bishops’ statement has moved the debate on significantly in the Catholic school sector, which can now focus on how best to develop arrangements that meet the bishops’ aim of providing an education system that fosters justice, social cohesion and reconciliation and maintains and enhances quality but does not promote elitism. I encourage others to consider the key issue of academic selection as the first crucial step in progressing their response to the review.
My Department’s consultation on the post-primary review is the largest ever undertaken on an educational issue. We have issued a consultation pack, including a video to all schools, further education colleges, training organisations, community organisations and public libraries in order to encourage and stimulate discussion of the issues. These bodies will also receive a detailed response booklet at the end of April. The views of the public are important, and we will be gathering those through a household response form that will be issued to every household in late May. The massive scale of this consultation reflects the importance of the issue. I want as many people as possible to take part in the debate and to submit their comments to my Department.
I want to deal with as many of the issues raised as time will allow. Sammy Wilson raised the issue of the meeting with the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. It was alleged that I stated that academic selection must go. It was the CCMS that stated after the meeting that academic selection must go, not me. Mr Wilson’s other more political comments clearly show that, after all this time, he is still in absolute denial about the Good Friday Agreement. His hope that after next year’s Assembly elections the DUP, as the largest party, would prevent Sinn Féin being involved in Government shows that the DUP is not only running away from the Good Friday Agreement, but it is running away from the issue of post-primary education. The issue will not go away and will have to be faced up to.
Sammy Wilson also raised the issue of academic selection and the transfer tests. It was suggested that I had called for an end to selection, whereas Burns referred to the abolition of academic selection. I have said throughout this consultation that academic selection is the key issue that must be addressed. Transfer tests and academic selection are inextricably linked. There cannot be a selective system without a means of selection. The transfer test cannot be abolished unless some other process is put in its place.
Sammy Wilson also raised the issue of the household response form and its neutrality. The response form provides everyone with the opportunity to contribute to the debate; therefore, it is important that its content be politically neutral. The response form will include a summary of the main proposals made by Burns and will ask several questions on the key issues. It is important that we consider educational issues and raise the debate above any party political perspective. I provided the Committee for Education, of which Sammy Wilson is the Deputy Chairperson, with a copy of both the household response form and the detailed response booklet before they were finalised so that members could make suggestions about how they could be improved, and to clarify the issues and help to facilitate responses.
Sammy Wilson, Danny Kennedy, Patricia Lewsley and Peter Weir discussed admissions. It is difficult for children from disadvantaged areas to access grammar schools. I am aware of the allegations expressed by some that the admissions criteria proposed by Burns would lead to selection by postcode. Others say that our existing education system is socially selective and that it disadvantages the working class. It is also claimed that a comprehensive system based on neighbourhood schools would lead to social selection and would be accompanied by the introduction of private schools. These are difficult issues, but I do not rule out the possibility of devising alternative arrangements for making decisions on school admissions to avoid some of these problems. There are examples in other countries that we could consider.
I have noted the concerns expressed specifically about the admissions criteria, including the use of proximity as a final criterion. Let me make it clear: I have invited alternatives to the Burns proposals. It is open to everyone to suggest alternative or additional criteria.
Peter Weir and Sammy Wilson raised the issue of pupil profiling. The establishment of pupil profiles is one of the key recommendations in the report. The intention is to provide a better basis on which parents and pupils can make decisions on their post-primary school. I welcome comments on that as part of the response to the full report. Concerns have been expressed that it would increase the administrative burden on teachers and schools. I am conscious of the bureaucratic burden on teachers, and I will continue to work to reduce that in any new arrangements that are implemented.
Using the pupil profile for admission purposes would not be another form of academic selection. The full range of information contained in a profile would have to be reduced to a single letter or grade. That would be difficult to do and would run counter to the whole purpose of a holistic pupil profile. The use of the pupil profile in that way would not overcome the weakness that two thirds of the pupils are regarded as failures at the age of 11, and they suffer a huge and enduring blow to their self-esteem.
In addition, using the pupil profile would put more pressure on teachers and parents, and it is unlikely to have the broad support of the teaching profession. It has been suggested that the pupil profile could be used for selection purposes. Teachers’ unions are adamantly opposed to the use of the pupil profile for any form of selection.
Danny Kennedy and Ken Robinson said that the consultation was biased, and that the Department was not conducting a fair and open consultation. I am satisfied that the consultation has been handled properly, and I refute any claims that it has been biased. My role in the consultation is to facilitate and encourage debate on the key issues by everyone who has an interest or an opinion. It is important that all sides of the arguments be voiced so that there is an open and balanced debate.
Recent press statements that I issued reflect the views that were expressed to me. I am holding a series of meetings with key interests to listen to their views and to help to stimulate informed debate on the issues. The video and support materials, the household response forms and the detailed response booklets are politically neutral and were made available to the Education Committee for comment. Several helpful comments and suggestions were incorporated into the materials. I intend to publish a summary of the responses. It will take time to analyse those responses, but I expect to be able to publish a summary by the end of September 2002.
I want to place on record my appreciation of the valuable contribution made by the Education Committee, and the fact that it was able to respond to tight deadlines dictated by the timescale for the consultation. That illustrates my good working relationship with the Committee, and I look forward to that continuing as the review progresses.
Paddy Roche raised the issue of grammar schools. Our grammar schools provide high standards of attainment for one third of our pupils. However, we need to think about the impact of our academically selective arrangements on the large majority of children who do not get to a grammar school. There is evidence from Scotland, and from the recent Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, to suggest that other systems can achieve comparable, or even better, results.
There is a significant variation in the performance of our grammar schools. The percentage of pupils achieving three or more A levels can range from 30% in the lowest-achieving schools to 68% in the highest-achieving schools. The percentage of pupils achieving seven or more GCSEs at grades A to C can range from 75% in the lowest-achieving schools to 98% in the highest-achieving schools.
I hope that the voluntary grammar schools will support and participate in whatever new post-primary arrangements are put in place. Any school that is thinking about becoming independent will have to consider the financial implications. Parents would have to meet tuition costs and any future school capital development costs —

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. I ask the Minister to bring his response to a conclusion.

Mr Martin McGuinness: There is an issue about the recovery of capital grants paid to the schools by my Department. Teachers in independent schools would be removed from the current pay and pension arrangements. Fees would be determined by each school and would vary from school to school. The annual fees in independent schools in England range from £6,000 to £10,000.
There is a pressing demand for change, and it is incumbent on us to focus on the needs of children rather than on party politics or the interests of particular institutions. The challenge for us all is to recognise that change is necessary, and that we must build the maximum possible consensus on new arrangements.

Mr Sammy Wilson: In his final remarks, the Minister has shown the House how sincere he is when he talks about consensus on the subject. It is clear that those who do not go down the route that Martin McGuinness wants will have the financial and the administrative Armalite held to their heads as they are pushed into acceding to the Minister’s wishes. I am glad to see that the gloves are coming off in this fight. I hope that the Minister’s last remarks will be a wake-up call to all those who have sat back complacently, believing that the decent thing will be done, because this Minister does not intend to do the decent thing by education. As other people have said, he intends to ram through his 1960s socialist dogma regardless of whether there is consensus or not.
This has been an interesting debate. We have had a range of views. Patricia Lewsley stuck her head in the sand and ignored the views of the many middle-class Nationalists who are flocking to grammar schools. However, Patricia Lewsley’s answer is to have all-ability comprehensive schools with all-ability classes and no streaming. That really is going back to the failed policies of the 1960s. I very much doubt that too many SDLP voters will be sympathetic to that.
As usual, Eileen Bell sat firmly on the fence. She wants to keep the best aspects of the grammar schools but do away with selection. I do not know how that can be done. Perhaps she will explain it to us some other time. Mary Nelis was also stuck in the 1960s. The only thing missing from Mary Nelis’s speech about elitism and class discrimination was a rendition of ‘The Red Flag’ at the end.
The Minister displayed his usual stuck-needle approach. I have heard and read his speech before. It went to the INTO conference and to the CCMS, and now we have had it in the Assembly. At least he could have done the decent thing and dreamt up a new speech for today. He started off by saying that the debate had to be based on properly informed opinions and on data. He may even have used the phrase "robust data". What did we get? We got three stories about wee girls waking up in the middle of the night and sleepwalking. Is that robust data? [Interruption].
No.
This is what the Minister is using: emotional blackmail or emotional claptrap. Either the argument is based on data and facts, or it is based on the kind of nonsense that we got from the Minister today. That is not the way to proceed. When it comes to data, I would have thought that he would have learned the lesson from his long years of interrogation by the police, the Army and others — get your story straight before you open your mouth or else keep it shut.
The Minister tells us that 8% of working-class youngsters get to a grammar school. Gerry McHugh tells us that 15% of those who go to grammar schools are on free school meals. Which is it? Is it 8% or 15%? Perhaps it is something different. However, we are told that our arguments must be based on data — myth number two or three, or whatever it was.
The Minister tells us in England fewer pupils leave school with fewer than five GCSEs. That is not what he told Peter Weir on 21 March. My understanding is that 11% is greater than 8%, but perhaps I am wrong. That is what the Minister said in a written answer to Peter Weir. If he is going to base these claims on data, he should get the data and the story right. However, the evidence and the arguments do not matter; the Minister is determined to go down a certain route.
He mentioned that you cannot have a selective system without some form of selection — that is right. The end of academic selection will not mean that there will be a non-selective system. Mr Burns made that clear when he stated in his report that there would still be oversubscribed schools. Will the Minister tell us how people will be selected, if he is not going to select on the basis of what is best for them academically? Let us make it clear that selection does not involve academic rejection; it is a selection for the best route. You are not rejecting people; you are saying that one route is best for some people and that another is best for others. The use of emotional language is the final appeal of someone whose arguments are bankrupt. If you are not going to select people on the basis of their academic ability and what is best for them educationally, what are you left with? You are left with only two other kinds of selection — economic selection or social selection. Socially deprived people would come out far worse on those counts than they do on the basis of academic selection.
We have the evidence in England of the Prime Minister’s escaping the bog-standard system of education that people want to introduce into Northern Ireland by paying for his youngsters to go to school. Half of his Cabinet have turned their backs on their socialist principles — or perhaps they do not have any socialist principles. In any case, they have turned their backs on their rhetoric, and they pay to send their youngsters to school. That is the alternative to academic selection. Trade unions are opposed to pupil profiles being used for any form of selection. Mr Burns also pointed that out:
"If assessment outcomes in primary schools are used by post-primary schools to select children, for enrolment or for the purposes of ability streaming or banding, pressure grows at primary school to coach for assessment tests, and ultimately results in distortions and inequalities in teaching and learning".
Schools may be prevented from seeing those profiles before youngsters arrive, but when they get those profiles, one cannot stop them from using them for streaming. They can do whatever they wish with them then. The things that the Minister told us that he would abolish will not be abolished. In fact, they will be stretched out over one, two or three years. I am not saying that; Mr Burns said it, and the Minister admitted it.
The trade unions do not want pupil profiles to be used for any form of selection, but, once they are published, neither the trade unions nor the Minister nor anyone else can stop them from being used for that purpose. Let us not pretend that these issues are clear-cut. I want to pick up on a point that Billy Hutchinson made because there is an attempt to drive a wedge between Unionists. I represent a working-class constituency, but I could no longer describe myself as working class. Given their incomes, I do not think that any Members could describe themselves as such.
Nevertheless, let me say this. The sacrifices that my parents made to send me to a grammar school, which I earned a place in, enabled me to climb up the ladder. I have taught numerous youngsters from working-class backgrounds in a grammar school, and they have since been able to climb up the ladder as a result of the system. There are many others who will be advantaged by the continuation of a system that caters for diverse needs by providing different institutions for them.
However, there is a problem, and Bob McCartney highlighted one answer to it. It is not only a matter of the 11-plus — it is a whole attitude in society. How do we value those who go a different educational route? A change in the 11-plus, or increased spending at the lower end of education, will not answer that question. Many complex issues need to be addressed, and I hope that, in the coming months, we shall have the opportunity to do that. As I said earlier, I trust that the Minister will not run away from the House when it comes to making decisions; that he will listen to the Members of the House; and that the big stick that he wielded at the end of his speech does not show the way in which the debate will be conducted.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the publication of the Burns report on 24 October 2001 on the review of post-primary education.

Recycling of Waste

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls for the immediate establishment of an effective recycling agency to assess, develop and promote all aspects of the recycling of waste from industrial, commercial and domestic sources in Northern Ireland.
I hope that the exodus of Members does not reflect their interest in the subject that I am about to discuss and that I hope to do something about. I shall ignore those leaving the Chamber and get on with the business. I do not need to remind Members that waste management is one of the biggest bread-and-butter issues to face us at this time, whatever our party or constituency. Each of us is concerned from time to time with very local aspects of waste management, such as litter control. At times we may focus more on the domestic side of waste management. Some of us yearn for separate bins — blue bins, white bins, green bins and yellow bins — for glass and paper in order to separate organic and garden waste so that it can be used for compost, and to set aside residual general waste. However, if we want to make a difference, we must deal with the bigger picture. We need to step back and have a long-term view on the problem.
The issue is bigger than Northern Ireland; it is an all-Ireland and, indeed, an all-Europe issue. Approaches to it should be on the agenda for the relevant cross-border ministerial meetings and involve co-operation between Departments, North and South, as there are no politics in this as such. If we cannot find solutions by working together and by giving mutual support; North and South; we shall disappear under the ever-growing mountain of rubbish.
I am intrigued by Minister Noel Dempsey’s efforts in the South; his recent taxation of plastic bags was interesting. Overnight there was a rapid reduction in the number of bags blowing about in hedgerows across Southern Ireland, and the public reacted favourably. My difficulty with our current efforts on waste management and recycling is that we all talk the talk, but we do not walk the walk. We speak the jargon, we have all the clichés, but we do nothing substantial, and the waste management strategy remains fragmented, piecemeal and effectively useless.
Much of the responsibility for handling our waste rests with local district councils, and in many cases they dispose of waste into landfill sites. However, it is the Department of the Environment that sets the policy, even though overall responsibility does not appear to rest anywhere. There is a magic circle in which the buck keeps being passed. To overcome that and get everyone on board, we need a cohesive, dynamic partnership between our Government — regional government and local government — and the environmental interests in the broader community. A free-standing agency that can relate to all interests will best meet that objective.
There is a problem with our current approach. We do not have a lack of raw material, as there is any God’s amount of it. We do not have a lack of public interest — if a member of the public recognises someone as a public representative, whether at local government or Assembly level, he or she will get an earbashing about waste management. The difficulty is outlets and markets for the product — or the by-product — and the lack of meaningful vision to take a large-scale, long-term view and make a difference.
It behoves us to find ways and means to create opportunities and outlets to allow recycling to flourish. Why does the Department for Regional Development, which is involved in the big infrastructure contracts, not specify that recycled concrete from brick rubble and the like can be used as hard-core fill for road and other infrastructure schemes, such as car parking? I am not suggesting that it should be used to resurface a road, although 25% to 30% of the hard-core rubble that goes into much of those developments could be derived from recycled material.
We must have commitment as an Assembly, and we must create that commitment and stick with it until we have solved the waste problem. We need to act in a meaningful, functional joined-up mode, and the only way to do that is to create a strong, powerful agency in the North to work closely with whatever authority exists in the South. Better than that would be an all-island agency like Tourism Ireland Ltd to manage this crisis aggressively and with authority.
We have to begin to sort out the bigger aspects. I shall now deal with construction, demolition and industrial waste rather than domestic waste, which we tend to focus on more often.
The problem of domestic waste will be resolved. There was an interesting EU Directive recently about recycling electrical appliances or returning them to the manufacturers. I am not sure how that will work, but I shall monitor it with interest.
If the next Department of Agriculture and Rural Development contract for a road scheme were to specify that 20% of the hard core is to be from recycled sources, that would make a vast difference. Many people in that business are struggling. They stockpile a certain amount of recycled material and must dump the rest as landfill because there is no market for it. If there were an outlet for the material, a conveyor-belt system would be created that would allow construction and demolition waste to be reused. If we had a market for such waste, even for industrial waste, much of which is metal in the form of old engines or machines, the problem of domestic waste could be resolved through pre-selection into separate bins for different destinations.
Some of us were excited by what we saw in Denmark, where in the middle of Copenhagan, there is a large non-toxic incinerator that generated masses of electricity at a low cost and also supplied the neighbourhood for a mile around with relatively free heating and hot water. That incinerator fascinated me. It burned wood, clothing, paper, some plastic bags and even disposable nappies. Few Members will be aware that the biggest element of domestic waste in a home in which there are small children is disposable nappies. They do not make useful landfill.
Food and organic waste can go into compost heaps, and we have to create the culture for that. Many people will be happy to make such provision. Garden waste and hedge cuttings can also go into the compost heap.
The UK is the second-largest producer of construction and demolition waste in the EU. The EU produces 180 million tonnes of construction waste a year. That is a massive amount. Reusing even a fraction of that would help. Europe-wide, 30% of construction waste is recycled: 70% goes to landfill. Some 40% of the waste comprises bricks, concrete, et cetera, 50% is stone and soil, and the remainder comprises small amounts of metal, asphalt and tar.
Northern Ireland produces 1·8 million tonnes of construction waste each year. Southern Ireland produces 2·7 million tonnes. All the waste in the South goes to landfill initially, but they manage to recycle 40% of that. Those figures need to rise up to 75% or 80%. Mobile crushing machinery is now available that can go onto a demolition site, grind the concrete and dispose of the waste as fill for somewhere else. I stand to be corrected on this matter, but I understand that some of the demolition waste removed from the M3 flyover was used in the Odyssey project.
Other demolition waste was used for some of the developments around the Titanic Quarter. The UK uses around 420 million tonnes of aggregates each year. Northern Ireland uses about 15 million or 20 million tonnes. One million tonnes of that could be derived from recycled materials.
Other Members may wish to comment on domestic waste, but I wish to refer briefly to opportunities for recycling industrial waste. Iron and scrap metals, as well as other materials, can be recycled rather than dumped in landfill sites.
I am grateful to the Minister for attending the debate. It is not enough to cry about recycling and the problem of waste management. Markets must be created as an outlet for recycled products and by-products, so that recovered metals can be reused and gain some added value. However, that will not happen if there are no markets.
I do not wish to bore Members with the variety of opportunities —

Mr Jim Wilson: It would be helpful if the Member would draw his speech to a close, as many other Members wish to speak.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I shall summarise the main points.
Members must take waste management seriously. It is a major industrial and domestic issue. Let us set meaningful targets for the reuse of so-called waste, whether it be concrete, wood, paper, iron or other metals. Let us consider seriously the possibilities of incinerating pre-selected, suitable waste and generating cheap electricity — God knows our electricity is expensive enough. It may be possible to distribute the waste heat from that process to heat water or to provide central heating for people in the neighbourhood.
We must try to ensure that departmental contracts specify that a percentage of recycled products would be desirable. My understanding is that, unless the contracts specify such requirements at the outset, nothing will be done.

Mr Jim Wilson: Given that the Business Committee has allocated 90 minutes for the debate and many Members wish to contribute, I ask Members to limit their speeches to six minutes.

Rev William McCrea: I support the ideas behind the motion. Throughout the life of the Assembly, the Environment Committee has been proactive in encouraging everyone in Northern Ireland — industry, commerce, the public and Government — to play an active role in waste minimisation and recycling.
Last month, the Committee hosted a reception for the chairperson and members of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, whose task it is to alert society to the challenges of sustainable development. Sustainable development is about returning to the most basic assumptions about the working of the economy and about learning to live within ecological and social limits. Innovative policy-making and departmental co-operation will be required to meet such challenges. The Committee for the Environment has taken, and will maintain, a keen interest in sustainable development through its encouragement of local councils to develop and implement effective waste management plans, which, when adopted finally, will underpin the Department of the Environment’s waste management strategy.
The Committee for the Environment welcomes moves by the Department to increase public awareness of waste minimisation and recycling through the Wake Up to Waste campaign, which promotes partnership with local authorities to achieve the key objectives and to bring about an important change in the public’s attitude to waste.
However, the determination and dedication of the Committee for the Environment has been a significant factor in progressing the Wake Up to Waste campaign. The Department launched its waste management strategy in March 2000, yet there was little or no progress on plans for waste reduction, recycling and education until September 2001. In July 2001, the Committee pressed the Department, not only on the slow progress of waste management plans but on the need to develop urgently a parallel programme of waste-recycling education for householders, businesses and schools. A key role in waste reduction lies with manufacturers, whose products and production systems must be modified urgently to minimise waste and maximise recycling opportunities.
The Committee encouraged the Department to extend the Great Britain waste and resources action programme to Northern Ireland. The GB programme promotes sustainable waste management. Its role, through the Waste Management Advisory Board, is to remove barriers to waste minimisation, to reuse and recycle, and to create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products. Such activities, and good waste data studies, if efficiently implemented, fulfil the role of a recycling agency that is envisaged in the motion.
With regard to regional waste management plans, which are essential to the development of Northern Ireland’s long-term strategy to deal with waste, the Committee was most concerned to learn that in the September 2001 monitoring round, the Department was forced to surrender £1 million of the £3·5 million that was allocated to waste management for 2001-02. Indeed, until the Committee intervened, there was a real danger that even more of the £3·5 million would have been lost. The Committee was so concerned with the lack of progress that it twice met — in September 2001 and in January 2002 — representatives of the three regional waste management district council partnerships and officials from the Department’s Environment and Heritage Service to urge progress on the development of the waste management plans.
The Committee also monitored progress through regular correspondence with the three regional partnerships and with the Department, especially on the Department’s scheme to distribute waste management funds to district councils. Members will, therefore, understand the Committee’s pleasure when the Minister announced the launch of the Wake Up to Waste campaign on 7 February 2002. It welcomes that campaign. However, I must emphasise that it is simply an important starting point. Much remains to be done, and I assure the House that the Committee for the Environment will continue to monitor progress and will actively intervene if progress is not evident.
I shall leave Members with this thought: it is not enough for Government to educate industry and the public on the importance of waste minimisation and recycling. Government Departments and all public bodies, such as health boards and education boards, must lead the way by giving practical support, by improving their own waste management performance and by developing sustainable procurement policies. Imagine the effect of that one act on the market for recycled and recovered materials in Northern Ireland. I support the thought behind the motion.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Waste is an enormous issue for everyone in Northern Ireland — a relatively small country that produces its fair share of industrial, commercial and domestic waste in every corner of the region. Failure to utilise waste successfully could result in the diminution of Northern Ireland as a tourist attraction, a place of economic opportunity and, most importantly, a natural and healthy place to live. Therefore, it is of great importance to find effective methods to recycle waste.
There is no point in creating mountains of plastic, aluminium, paper, metal or glass. We do not need any more mountains in Europe. We remember the great push for paper, plastic and glass recycling in the 1970s and the resultant bankruptcies of firms that were left with stockpiles of products that had no commercial outlets. The initial concentration on efforts to recycle paper and aluminium was a mistake.
The raw material of paper production, if properly utilised from forests where planting is in balance with felling, is a sustainable resource. Moreover, if correctly processed, paper is a biodegradable and necessary ingredient in making compost. Aluminium, on the other hand, is most plentiful and there is no excuse for wasting it.
One needs only to look at our river banks to see the environmental deficit as a result of the use of plastic. Many fast-flowing rivers whose levels rise rapidly during heavy rainfall almost have clothes lines of plastic sticking to the bushes that line the river banks. That is the more obvious and unsightly downside of the misuse of plastic. What impression does that picture leave with tourists, who are another scarce commodity in our area? There must be complete awareness of the problem, and we must start with the youth.
Legislation that lays out a definite timetable must be put in place. Plastic carrier bags, used extensively in the retail sector, should be phased out. Woven paper products are now available that rival plastic for strength. Paper, as I have already said, comes from an infinitely renewable source. Plastic designed for use in industry and agriculture should be totally biodegradable.
Legislation will concentrate minds, as it did when leaded petrol was phased out. Business and industry will come up with an alternative when faced with an imperative. All valued or troublesome waste should be categorised. The important question should be: "Is there a destination? Is there a market?" If not, one should be developed. Plants could be set up across Northern Ireland to categorise waste and incinerate it to produce energy and heat. Different filters for each different type of waste could be used to eradicate toxic waste.
There is surely a ready market for compost — horticultural outlets and garden centres are only two examples. District councils have their part to play through the use of compost in parks and flower beds.
There is a high level of waste on farms and other agricultural establishments because of modern farming methods. Biogas plants, such as that proposed at Fivemiletown, are to be commended, but funding for that type of system is a big problem. The operation of biogas plants, as seen in Sweden and Denmark, makes a significant contribution to solving several environmental problems in agriculture, waste recycling and greenhouse gas emissions. The use of anaerobic digesters on farms, in agriculture industries and in sewage treatment works should be promoted and encouraged.
It is of the utmost importance that all waste be made into a product. Where there is a product, there is no waste. People with small minds create much waste. The Assembly should take up the issue of utilising all waste to make a profit and to make Northern Ireland a healthier and more environmentally friendly place to live. The public should be left in no doubt that recycling will cost money, but it also costs money when waste is not recycled. It will be a cost worth paying if generations to come are to have a future.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome Dr McDonnell’s important initiative and the opportunity to discuss waste management. Sinn Féin recognises, and is pleased that others recognise, the importance of recycling as part of a co-ordinated waste management strategy. However, Sinn Féin believes that our sights must be set higher and that the highest possible standards must be met. On 24 October 2000, Mitchel McLaughlin and I tabled a motion calling on the Minister of the Environment to work progressively towards zero waste targets.
As political leaders and activists, many in the Assembly have worked closely with local communities on environmental and planning issues. Two important lessons have been learnt. The first is that collective action by communities, with support from the public, can achieve real and positive change and solve environmental problems. That leads to an overall heightening of public awareness of the importance of environmental issues. The second lesson is that environmental problems are not only local or national matters, but have global implications. Waste management must encompass not only recycling, as seen in the very good advertisements by the Department of the Environment, but we must also consider reducing the amount of waste produced, and a means of dealing with waste material that cannot be recycled.
Last week I asked the Minister of the Environment, Mr Nesbitt, if he had any plans to implement the Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC), which relates to packaging waste. I also asked him what he proposed to do about plastic bags from retail grocery outlets. Each week thousands of plastic bags end up in landfill sites, and I called on him to introduce the Regulations, introduced by Noel Dempsey TD, that apply on the rest of the island. The charge levied on plastic bags to encourage their reuse and to reduce the amount going into landfill sites has had a significant effect across the Twenty-six Counties. Unfortunately, I was not too happy with the Minister’s reply.
Unless we address the gap that persists between the rapid development in smart technology and the new economics of resource efficiency, Ireland will inherit a waste management infrastructure that was originally designed for the nineteenth century. Over the coming decades, our society will have to adapt. Zero waste represents a new planning approach and defines the discipline required to create a more viable pattern of interaction with our natural world, including the principles of conserving resources, minimising pollution, maximising employment opportunities and providing more local economic self-reliance.
The guiding principles on zero waste must be translated into practical policies and measures. Responsibility for waste management must pass from the taxpayer and local authorities to the manufacturers and producers of goods, who can ensure that the design and packaging of their products include plans for the recovery of the material waste. Incineration is not the answer. Yesterday we debated the risks of mobile phones to health. We must be very careful. People do not want further health problems or fears of the unknown.
Local authority engineers and other officers must be retrained to depart progressively from the landfill and incineration approaches to waste disposal and led to adopt a modernised procedure. These techniques aim to create enabling frameworks for producers and consumers to increase the resource productivity and reduce hazards through the design of products and processes. Manufacturers could close the loop by using materials collected through recycling programmes to produce new material and packaging; there could be initiatives to encourage households and businesses to reduce waste and to recycle, and a scheme could be introduced to bring about changes in waste disposal and recovery of material.
I do not have time to complete my speech, but we must establish an effective recycling agency to assess, develop and promote recycling —

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. Will the Member bring his contribution to a conclusion.

Mr Mick Murphy: I make one final point — we need to involve communities in recycling. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr David Ford: The responsibility for waste management has been split between the Department of the Environment and district councils for many years. There is undoubtedly a view among district councils that the Department dumps the problems on councils and takes credit for the easy bits. Fortunately that position has changed a little in recent years. The waste management strategy published two years ago is undoubtedly good. The problem is that it took too long to prepare and is perhaps too much of an overview of the situation rather than getting down to the practicalities.
Northern Ireland district councils are, by and large, too small to carry out the full range of waste management responsibilities, which is why we have three regional groups preparing plans. However, they are creating several problems for themselves because of the simple lack of co-ordination. There are up to a dozen district councils, with different political agendas and individual problems. That is why, as highlighted by the Committee Chairperson, the arc21 group in the eastern region effectively lost £1 million from last year’s budget because it was taking time to prepare a detailed plan rather than rushing into expenditure. We must learn from that. In the shire counties of England, it is a district council’s responsibility to collect waste and a county council’s responsibility to dispose of it; there has to be that application of scale. I am not yet convinced that we are starting to deal with those waste problems, although we are moving in the right direction.
Our recycling rates are dreadful when compared to many other parts of the UK. District councils such as Sutton and Eastleigh in England are setting us a good example with recycling rates of three or four times those of councils in Northern Ireland. Of course, we have had problems. When I was elected to Antrim Borough Council nine years ago, the council was developing a plan for a new landfill site, which would have included a recycling facility. The council is still waiting for the Department — because of the regional development strategy — to take a decision on that plan. We must learn some of those lessons and get away from the environmentally and financially unfriendly situation of having waste transported. I thought that the distance between Toome and Ballyclare was long until I heard of waste being transported from Ballymena to Scotland. That issue is of concern to several councils.
The Department of the Environment has limited areas of responsibility and it has, therefore, limited ability to influence decisions on the reuse and recycling of waste. If we had joined-up government in its fullest sense other Departments and Government agencies would use their influence to improve things.
Dr McDonnell gave examples of things that should be done. With the exception of his apparent enthusiasm for incineration, I would not disagree with many of them — the jury is still out on the validity of incineration. Undoubtedly, as regards the markets that need to provide outlets for recycled material, Departments such as Enterprise, Trade and Investment and Agriculture and Rural Development need to be involved.
We must ensure that the spirit of recycling pervades the Government and is not confined merely to the Department of the Environment. If we do not, we will return to the situation from which we hope we are moving away. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know Mallusk as well as I do, and areas such as that will continue to be blighted not only by past dumping but by the threat of future dumping if the matter is not dealt with properly.
Although the primary responsibility rests with the Department of the Environment and the district councils, we must look at other uses of waste by other Departments and public agencies, and that is why I am slightly concerned by the wording of Dr McDonnell’s motion. We have all more or less agreed with his sentiments so far, and, as I have said, there is no doubt that matters are moving better than they were. Indeed, Dr McCrea highlighted that point in his formal response on behalf of the Committee for the Environment. However, the precise wording of Dr McDonnell’s motion calls for
"the immediate establishment of an effective recycling agency"
and that suggests to me that he has given up hope of the district councils and the Department of the Environment solving anything. It also suggests the potential for the problems associated with using another quango rather than our current structures.
Looking back over recent years, I can see why an active district councillor might have given up hope that the Department of the Environment would respond appropriately. However, from my perspective on the Committee for the Environment, it seems that the Minister and the civil servants appear to understand the problems and are attempting to work in a better partnership with district councils than they were previously. I hope that the Minister will confirm that in the debate. If he gives assurances that the Department will take its responsibilities seriously, I hope that we can join in supporting the sentiments of the Member who moved the motion. At the same time, however, it would be valuable if Dr McDonnell accepted those sentiments, banked them and did not push the motion to a vote. If he does push for a vote, the debate will become more divisive than it needs to be.

Mr Norman Boyd: Many of my constituents in South Antrim and indeed people throughout Northern Ireland, as Mr Ford said, have had to endure untold problems caused by landfill. Real alternatives for managing waste are long overdue. With recent European Union Directives on alternatives to landfill waste, we must prioritise an effective strategy as well as a co-ordinated response by the Department to manage all aspects of waste recycling.
I am disappointed that the SDLP Member who moved the motion brought a wider political aspect to the debate by suggesting an all-Ireland agency. That is unnecessary, and we should focus on resolving our own waste management problems here. Establishing a Northern Ireland agency is what would be appropriate.
I welcome the Wake Up to Waste campaign, but we must provide practical solutions so that a recycling culture is created. I welcome the practical steps that my council in Newtownabbey has taken in recent years in creating a site at Bruslee for different types of rubbish to be recycled, including grass cuttings, electrical goods, metal, timber, paper and bottles. Each household in Newtownabbey has also been provided with a recycling bin for newspapers.
However, not all council areas here have taken those steps. For example, in the north-west, only 3% of waste is recycled and only 1% in the council area in Londonderry. The Northern Ireland average for waste recycling is 7%. Contrast that with the Netherlands, for example, where 45% of waste is recycled. We clearly have much work to do to create a climate of recycling.
Each household in Northern Ireland produces 1·4 tonnes of waste each year. It was stated recently in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ that our discarded domestic rubbish could fill the Waterfront Hall every two weeks. At present 95% of rubbish is buried in landfill sites. With all the hazards associated with landfill, there must be alternatives. We need an agency that can co-ordinate the network of waste recycling and recovery facilities and reduce the dependency on landfill. A healthy environment is essential for the quality of our own lives and our children’s lives. We have an obligation to protect our environment.

Ms Jane Morrice: I commend Mr Boyd, because he has taken many words out of my mouth. It is important to highlight the recycling culture.
I welcome the recent shocking television advertisement, which drives home the dangers that we face if we continue to stuff our bins, landfill sites and countryside with the ugly legacy of our consumer-driven society. I thank Dr McDonnell for tabling the motion, because it puts a new focus on an important issue and educates us about the dreadful facts and figures that are associated with waste products.
The Women’s Coalition supports the spirit of the motion, which focuses on recycling and a recycling agency. Members know that three elements in the waste management package must operate in tandem: reduce, reuse and recycle. We cannot simply focus on recycling. In order to solve the massive waste management problem, we must go further back in the process.
Members have mentioned many different ways in which we could tackle the waste management problem. Other proposals could include an incentive scheme, whereby industry is given rewards, such as a green tick or a stamp or an official recognition, for the operation of waste reduction policies. Supermarkets, many of which should be commended for their work, could be rewarded for either a reduction in the amount of packaging or for the use of biodegradable packaging.
Billy Armstrong mentioned the importance of a greater focus on the use of energy supplies from agricultural waste, which is an important issue that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has considered in detail. Norman Boyd quoted huge domestic waste figures.
Should the new agency focus only on recycling? Should the Assembly create a new agency, given that it is trying to reduce the number of agencies? Would it be better to co-ordinate the activities of the existing agencies? A joined-up government approach is necessary. There may be a role for a senior cross-departmental group. Whatever the correct approach is decided to be, and we are not saying yea or nay, it is important that bodies such as the advisory board of the Environment and Heritage Service’s waste management strategy be consulted.
The most important area to consider is best practice. I have nothing but praise for the work of non-governmental organisations. For example, in pilot schemes, Bryson House’s kerbside recycling project has been excellent. Given that such non-governmental organisations lead the field, they must be given solid support. The valuable work of Friends of the Earth and Conservation Volunteers must also be recognised. The councils that lead the way in recycling and waste management must be rewarded.
On the other hand, we must spur on those councils that are dragging their heels. It is unfortunate that several councils in Northern Ireland have not got their act together on this issue. We need co-operation. David Ford mentioned that we need co-operation between non-governmental organisations (NGOs), local councils, Departments and, importantly, the private sector. We must involve the private sector so that recycling and waste management can become real issues on which work is co-ordinated. We need to change the culture that surrounds the issue, and treat waste properly — as a dirty word.

Mr Arthur Doherty: I fell out of bed during the early hours of last Thursday. It may disappoint you to know that, when I was abruptly awoken, my first thought was not "What can be done about waste recycling?" My thoughts were more along the lines of "Where am I, and what am I doing here?" When I got back into bed, I drifted back into philosophical musings, as one does at three in the morning. Those are very profound questions. Even more profound is the seminal question "What am I?" As I nursed my damaged head, the answer came to me — not in a flash, but I finally got there — that I am a product, wrapped in a package. I am — we all are — potential waste material. Having established a link with the motion, and before going on to the nitty-gritty, I shall develop that thought.
Our product is our intelligence, our sensory perception, our emotions, our capacity to create or destroy; in short, it is our spirit, our soul, our life — wonderful and terrifying. When our souls depart, as they will, although I will not speculate about where, what is left is technically, in today’s terms, waste. As waste, it must be disposed of. Most traditional methods involve a landfill site or incineration; there is some recycling. Anthropophagy was one early form, and there have been some other gruesome practices. However, I will hurry on from that to mention the wonders of preserving life and restoring health through the transplantation of human organs.
I hope that no one feels that my comments are crude or tasteless. I am trying to deal with a sensitive subject in a way that I hope will spur people into a new mode of thinking and that will change the widely held idea that much, perhaps most, of what we produce from our ever-decreasing treasure house of natural resources is waste. We must stop regarding as waste all that packaging, paper and cardboard, all those plastic bottles and bags, all that expanded polystyrene and bubble wrap, and all those tins, bottles, leftovers and "worn-outs", scrapings, cuttings and clippings — all that stuff — that is left lying about when we finally get to the, sometimes tatty, product. It is not waste. It, too, is a product, waiting for a producer or a reproducer.
Having got that off my too-feeble chest, I turn again to the motion, which calls for the establishment of an effective recycling agency. I am all for that. Thousands of statistics could be quoted, detailing the vast amount of waste created, how much of it is shovelled into holes in the ground to fester and turn poisonous, and how little of it is recycled. I will not go into the details of subjects about which other Members know more. I will give only one titbit. Aluminium is the most plentiful metal in the earth’s crust. It is a wonderfully useful material, but it is difficult and expensive in energy terms to mine and process. However, there are so many thousands of tonnes of aluminium — or should I say aluminum? — in the form of cans and containers in US landfill sites that it might be more economically viable, technologically simpler, and at least as environmentally friendly to mine the dumps for aluminium to reprocess than it is to rip more bauxite from the earth. Isn’t that a thought?
The need for an effective agency to direct recycling is blindingly obvious. This is not a local, regional or national issue; it is a world issue, and if the world gets it wrong the consequences will be dire. Despite the worthwhile proposals being developed by district councils and council groups in their waste management plans, and, despite the good work being done regionally, it is essential that the organisations and machinery be in place and the resources made available to ensure that the united and co-operative energies and expertise are combined to respond quickly and effectively to a world emergency. I fully support Dr McDonnell’s excellent motion.

Mr Alban Maginness: Much has been said and, I suppose, recycled in this debate, and I do not intend to repeat what others have expressed, perhaps more eloquently than I could. I assure you that this is not a party political point, but it is important to develop a strategy that involves both parts of the island. The problems that affect Northern Ireland affect people in the Republic — there is no doubt about that. A joint strategy between the two parts of the island, as envisaged in the North/South Ministerial Council meetings, is to be welcomed, and I know that valuable work is being done on that. I want to emphasise this in a non-partisan way.
We face the common problem of the accumulation of waste. That accumulation arises from our own success — we are a successful economy and are becoming more successful. Our economic success means more production, and more production means more waste. That is the reality. The industrial and agricultural sectors account for a great deal of the waste going into our watercourses, lakes, rivers and streams. That is a considerable problem, North and South. We must use, reuse and recycle that waste. For example, mushroom farming in the border counties is affected by a problem with waste disposal. That problem is common to both sides of the border. It would be common sense for us to pursue a cross-border, all-Ireland strategy on waste. [Interruption].
I see that the Minister of the Environment has just wasted a glass of water, but we will not allow that to distract us too much.
I welcome this thoughtful motion, which calls for an effective recycling agency. I endorse that, as would most, if not all, Members. We do require a cultural change — a cultural revolution — on waste. Unless we re-educate our citizens we will continue to add to the waste mountain that is the result of our affluence.
We must become self-disciplining and educate our children in that regard. We must also put into operation ways and means of restricting the creation of waste at the point of production. In other words, we must look carefully at what we produce to see whether we can minimise waste and, particularly, packaging. We must break the link between economic production and waste. If we are ingenious enough to create a vibrant economy — which we have done and will continue to do — we are ingenious enough to tackle the problem at source.
We need a cultural revolution. We must consider how to minimise waste. As Dr McDonnell has suggested, we must be sensitive about recycling. That can be done through an agency, such as Dr McDonnell suggested, and through the strategy that the Department of the Environment is developing. If there is anything that one can compliment the Department of the Environment on — and I am not loathe to compliment the Department of the Environment — it is its progressive approach to waste management. We must all give it our united support to free us from the mountain of waste.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I thank all who contributed to the debate. It was a debate full of nuance, and I choose that word deliberately. I was wrestling with the opening words that I would use in responding to the debate. The words that I intended to use were: "I agree with the sentiments". I noted that the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment said that he supported the thoughts behind the motion. I do likewise. That is a better way of phrasing it. Mr Ford used the word "sentiments", and Jane Morrice spoke of the "spirit" of the motion. Alban Maginness referred to the "progressive approach" of the Department. There is much to think about. Judging from all the comments made, we empathise — if that can be an embracing word — with the thrust of the motion.
However, I am concerned that it calls for the "immediate" establishment of an agency. We all want to assess, develop and promote every aspect of recycling waste. I am sure that it was not the proposer’s intention, but Jane Morrice commented that the motion refers only to recycling. That is correct, but there is more involved than recycling; there is reduction, recovery and recycling. One can see that there is support for the sentiments and the thrust of the motion, but I say genuinely to the proposer that I am not so sure that there is a totality of support for every element of it. I ask the proposer to think about that before he comes to his winding-up speech.
We have an agency that deals with waste — the Environment and Heritage Service. It has a waste management unit, which has recently been expanded.
We also have the waste management board looking at that. It is an independent body that was set up recently to bring together all the stakeholders, and its function is to assess and promote waste management.
We must ensure that we are outcome-focused, as has already been said, and we must ensure that what needs to be done is done. I note the comments of support and the contribution made by the Environment Committee in the development of what needs to be done. We have in place the framework by which we can develop and bring to fruition the outcomes. If, therefore, after wide consultation, and, if we have a process that can potentially deliver, it would not be timely to interject with some new independent agency that would be established immediately. That does not reflect the tenor of the debate, and I note sentiments of support from Dr McDonnell.
The framework is very clear. It could be argued that it took a long time to prepare and deliver, but we have it now, and I concur with that. It wants to see waste management fully developed. Mr Mick Murphy said that reduction was the key element. Reduction, recovery, recycling, and — as has been mentioned by many Members — the market for recycled waste is the key element.
I agree with Dr McDonnell that markets are the big problem, and we must find ways and means to create the markets to allow recycling to proceed. He appealed to the Minister to create the markets — and not just cry about recycling. I endorse every sentiment expressed in those words. The markets are the fundamental fulcrums around which all of this will work or not work.
Key stakeholders must be involved. A founding principle is that those who produce the waste should be involved in the solution. That may sound trite, but we are all part of the problem, and therefore we must all be part of the solution.
I do not tell councils that waste is their problem. It is a problem for us all, and we must all work together. Mr Ford wanted an assurance about working together, and I give him that assurance. We are taking the lead in implementing that aspect through the waste management unit in Environment and Heritage Service.
Some Members referred to key targets. We must have a recovery of 25% of household waste by 2005. We must recover 25% of the waste from landfill and reuse it, and we must recover 40% by 2010. We must reduce landfill of industrial and commercial waste to 85% of 1998 levels, and we must bring the biodegradable aspect to 75% of 1995 levels.
Mr Boyd said that we need an agency to reduce landfill. I totally accept that landfill must be reduced, but, in taking the sentiments of the debate, I am not sure that immediately creating a new agency would deliver the outcome we want, and we should be focused on outcomes.
There are secondary targets, including end-of-life vehicles. By 2005, 85% of end-of-life vehicles must be recovered. By 2004, 90% of waste electrical and electronic equipment must be recovered. I could go on. For example, 85% of waste tars must be recovered by 2005.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
I do not want to bore the House with any more statistics. These are challenging targets for us all — the Assembly and the community that we represent — to fulfil. However, we will not fulfil those targets unless we put in place the mechanisms that will deliver them.
Let us look at the actions that are needed. The first key action is education and awareness, which Alban Maginness mentioned. Dr McCrea told us that the Wake Up to Waste initiative was an important starting point in the campaign to challenge public attitudes and awareness. I thank him for those comments. The worst system will work if people make it work. No matter how good a system we have, it will not work if people are not aware of it. That is a key issue. Education is therefore a key priority, and we have been involved in that.
The second key action is the segregation of materials — the diversification away from landfill and segregating into waste that can be recycled. If segregation is achieved, that will lead to the third key action — the new methods of processing and treatment. Above all, however, the markets must be there. If they are not, it could be argued that it is no good having education or segregating waste. There is no good in having the new processing and treatment facilities if there are no markets to take it. That was a key point made by Dr McDonnell.
One of the most important elements is co-operation. I noted Mr Ford’s comments that this approach is now working. I also note that he asked that we do not push the motion to a vote. Perhaps it will work, because that co-operation has to exist not only in the Assembly but among all the key stakeholders. Industry, local authorities, Government and the voluntary sector will all play their part.
Mr Ford stated that the district councils were too small to take on the task. I concur with that assessment. When I first met the members of the Waste Management Advisory Board for Northern Ireland, I put that question to them, and they agreed. We welcome the co-operation among the 26 district councils with the eastern, northwestern and southern regional groups. They are publishing plans, as Dr McCrea and others have said, for working throughout the region to ensure that the outcome is delivered. Those plans are an important part of the strategy. They will inform us about future decisions, the most important of which are about funding.
There are milestones to be set and targets to be achieved. Monitoring and reporting are also important. It is no good having a plan and a target and funding unless the process is monitored to ensure that you are achieving what you want to achieve. The plans are out for consultation. They will be submitted to the Department in June to be deliberated upon. It is hoped that the plans will be published in October 2002. That is the target.
We have already been granting money to assist in that regard, both last year and this year. The Waste Management Advisory Board has been helping us. It has three committees: one concerned with reduction, recycling and recovery, and another dealing with education. The board played an important part in the Wake Up to Waste campaign. I remember going home one day and seeing an advertisement on a bus, which bore the legend "Mountains to Mourne" — the word "of" had been replaced by the word "to". The Mourne Mountains were in the shape of the word "waste". We do not want to be mourning the mountains, the ones that I can see from my home on occasions if certain things do not get in the way. We will leave that for another day.
Other things are happening as well. We are involved in the waste resources action programme, a new UK-wide organisation, in which Whitehall, Wales, the Scottish Executive and Northern Ireland are all involved as partners to provide help in the delivery of markets.
We hope to set up — and more detail will come forward in May — an industry fund through which we will provide money through the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department of the Environment as a pilot scheme to see if we can develop sustainable markets, which is the key element.
I will briefly mention the North/South Ministerial Council as Alban Maginness referred to it, and it is important. The Belfast Agreement states that we should co-operate where it is to the benefit of both to so do, not for political purposes. I concur with that. I have met with Minister Dempsey several times, and we are trying to see what we can do over the coming months to deal with the fridges that are "frozen", as it were, and waiting to be disposed of.
Mick Murphy mentioned plastic bags. That would involve primary legislation to be decided on by the Treasury in London, so at this stage we cannot do anything about that. However, I note the success elsewhere, and we will monitor that closely. If it proves to be as beneficial as it seems, we will try to introduce it in Northern Ireland. Mr Ford said that the jury is still out. Dr McDonnell made an interesting comment about the large non-toxic incinerator that caused no harm and generated much energy. That was an interesting comment as the word "incinerator" and the other words are emotive and, therefore, must be treated with respect. We must not be emotional, and we must be measured in our tone.
In conclusion, we have a blueprint and we have education. We need to get the segregation, the reprocessing and, above all, the markets. Given the markets, there will be the opportunity, and, given that opportunity, there will be the means. If we have the opportunity and the means, there will be the motive, and that is what we are about.
Sentiments were expressed widely for the content of the motion. Whether it should be put to a vote or not is another thing. I would very much like it if we could note the debate and, in noting it, have the motion withdrawn. However, I empathise with the sentiments of DrMcDonnell, the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment and the other Members who spoke.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Mr Speaker, I am honoured that you have returned to listen to the winding-up speech. I was deeply disappointed when I rose earlier to have only a Deputy Speaker — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Shame.

Mr Speaker: He was recycled into a Speaker.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: All joking aside, I very much valued the Deputy Speaker’s efforts and the efforts of those Members who stayed in the Chamber when it might have been easier to disappear elsewhere.
The main reason for tabling the motion — and it has lain on the No Day Named list for about six months — was to move the debate on and to retain a focus on this major issue. I purposely wanted to focus on what needs to be done and the outcomes that the Minister referred to earlier, rather than cry more about what needs to be done. I focused more on the industrial and construction side of things because the vast majority of waste comes from there, yet we tend to focus on the bits that we know best, such as domestic waste. However, I feel that if we deal with the big industrial waste, domestic waste will dovetail in behind.
I have no difficulty with the sentiments expressed by some Members agreeing with the spirit of the motion, and I apologise if my construction of the motion was slightly defective. I was trying to grapple with something, and I suppose it is easy to agree with the spirit of the thing. I am not word-perfect; I am not a lawyer, and I am not an expert at drafting and getting these things in focus. I wanted to get everybody on board, to get everybody focused and for everyone to get a sense of ownership of what is going on out there. There is no real difference between us, although we may have disagreed on minor points.
I agree strongly with the reduction, reuse and recycling sentiments expressed by David Ford and Jane Morrice. I tried to deal with reuse and recycling, and I knew that other Members would deal with reduction. However, there is a recycling bottleneck, and unless there is a back door, we cannot continue to bung in more through the front door.
I understand the frustration over the proposal for the immediate establishment of an agency. However, I accept that changes are taking place, and I do not want to force a vote. I simply want to see some change. I do not want to see another landfill site on the north foreshore, which Belfast City Council closed and had to reopen to dump another 10 ft or 15 ft of waste.
I was fascinated by what has been achieved in Denmark. It has an incinerator where we have the Waterfront Hall. It produces vast amounts of electricity, hot water and central heating, which are available to anyone within a one-mile radius who wants it. That approach probably ameliorated neighbourhood objections. However, it works well, and it is clean.
I thank Dr McCrea for his generally supportive contribution about the minimisation of waste and sustainable development.
Billy Armstrong mentioned aluminium, glass, paper, plastic bags and the threat to health and tourism.
Mick Murphy wanted to set the sights higher, and he referred to the earlier debate and zero waste tolerance. I have no difficulty in agreeing with that.
David Ford mentioned the split between the Department of the Environment and the district councils. That is one of the main points, and we must get beyond that.
Although Norman Boyd disagreed with me on some issues, I do not think that they were terribly important. We are trying to make progress towards something that makes a difference to the lorry-loads of waste that are being gathered on our streets every day. He reiterated one of my points, which was that 95% of our household waste is going into landfills.
Jane Morrice mentioned the spirit of the motion and the incentives to promote waste reduction.
Arthur Doherty supported me well, although I felt threatened somewhat when he started to talk about the human dimension, because I was not sure whether he was going to bury, burn or recycle me. I do not intend to facilitate him for a little while. However, I welcome the fact that Mr Doherty mentioned aluminium, because that presents a major opportunity. It is connected with the high price of electricity, which is too high to recycle the aluminium that we have.
Alban Maginness mentioned an all-island strategy. In reacting to the Minister’s summary, I emphasise that I am not making a political point; it is a practical point. It would make good business sense, because Derry may want to work with Donegal, or Newry may want to work with Dundalk. It concerns common purpose, not political points.
The Minister made a grand tour of all the issues, and I shall not mention all the points he made. I thank him for being in attendance and for the detail of his response. However, he is on probation. On this occasion, I shall not push the motion to a vote. We shall revisit the motion next year and shall hold him to account if we do not see results in the meantime. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

Mr Speaker: The mover begs leave to withdraw the motion. Is it the will of the House that the motion be withdrawn?
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Speaker.]

Car Parking Provision at Garryduff Primary School, Ballymoney

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I want to draw to the attention of the House the issue of car parking provision at Garryduff Primary School in Ballymoney. Car parking provision at this rural primary school is a disaster waiting to happen if it is not addressed urgently by the Minister of Education, the Department of Education and the North Eastern Education and Library Board, where responsibility lies.
Garryduff Primary School is situated between Ballymoney and Dunloy on a stretch of rural country road where the traffic is fast. The school is well established and is expanding steadily; it has an excellent teaching reputation, a healthy enrolment and good examination results. However, in one regard it needs immediate, urgent and expeditious capital expenditure development.
The need for capital investment in car parking provision was identified over three years ago in a departmental focus review report, of which I am sure the Department is aware. The report commended the school’s teaching standards, but it also contained a health warning. It stated that there was a serious health and safety issue with regard to car parking arrangements for teaching staff and for parents dropping children off at school and collecting them. If the issue is not addressed, there could be a serious road traffic accident.
I emphasise that it is not the responsibility of the Department of Education to provide car parking facilities for parents. However, the Department has a duty of care and responsibility not only for the children in its care but also for the teaching and auxiliary staff. It is essential that a car parking facility should not only address the health and safety problems of the teaching and auxiliary staff but should also remove a danger that children must face every day. A child may not be knocked down or killed, but he or she could be seriously injured.
Urgent consideration must be given to the provision of minor works to this school, because it would make a major difference to the lives of the pupils, and parents would not have to face the heartache of dropping their children off at a dangerous school.
In June 2000, the North Eastern Education and Library Board made financial provision to purchase a field adjacent to the school to develop a car park. That transaction has still not taken place. In March 2000, the Roads Service stepped in to help the Department with the immediate problems. The Department for Regional Development should be commended for identifying some serious road hazards. I received a letter from the then Minister for Regional Development, Gregory Campbell. It stated:
"The road safety problems at the school would be greatly reduced by the provision of a dedicated car park to provide for the safe delivery and collection of children and for the safe parking of teachers’ vehicles."
Unfortunately, no further progress was made. By June 2001 the Department of Education recognised that there was some urgency. A letter that I received from it stated:
"Although the farmer has sold the site, this is now an urgent case, and we are actively pursuing this matter, and when I have something positive to report, I will write to you again soon."
That was almost a year ago. Parents and teachers believed that very little was being done. I am pleased to report that, at the beginning of this week, planning permission was given for the car park. The Department now has the choice of acquiring the land, which has been valued by the district valuer. I hope that it will acquire the land immediately. However, acquiring the land and obtaining planning permission is not enough to address the parking problem. The Department must find some £50,000 to deliver on the arrangement.
I hope that the Minister gets his skates on and moves ahead to release the money from his budget for the provision of the school car park.
As in every other constituency, there is a backlog of minor works programmes. In the North Eastern Education and Library Board there are 20 million identified minor works that could be carried out. However, this should be given top priority because of the significant health and safety issues for teachers and school workers, and also the better quality of life for children going to and leaving that school. Parents would also be relieved that their children could be left to school without taking their lives in their hands as they walk across that busy road on the way to school.
I hope that the Minister is able tonight to address the disaster that is waiting to happen if money is not immediately identified to make this car park provision. I hope that the Department is able to respond positively.

Mr James Leslie: As Mr Paisley said, the risks posed by the haphazard parking arrangements at Garryduff Primary School have been a cause of concern for some considerable time. I commend the work that has been done by Ballymoney road safety committee, and also that undertaken by the board of governors of Garryduff Primary School, in the form of intense lobbying that has reached the MLAs. It has certainly hit the main target, which is the North Eastern Education and Library Board. We are on the brink of a resolution, and it will be a source of considerable relief if the car parking facility can be built, now that the planning permission is there, along with the small adjacent play area. That would also be a good thing, as it would focus the children’s attention as they are waiting to be picked up.
The road leading to the school from Ballymoney runs straight for some distance and, inevitably, traffic will reach high speeds. Vehicles coming from the opposite direction have to round a bend, and thus tend not to be travelling at such breakneck speed. They are, however, coming from a blind corner. It is an area where vehicles reach high speeds most of the time. I have occasionally complained to the Roads Service about the bumps, potholes and general state of disrepair of the road, although on the whole that does contribute a little to slowing down the traffic, which is probably just as well.
During its inquiry into school transport, the Environment Committee examined the merit of adopting the practice of some US states that, when a school bus has pulled in, there should be no overtaking of that bus until it has moved on again, so that children can alight and cross the road safely. School buses stopping outside Garryduff Primary School would be a perfect case study of the merits of that approach. The argument in favour is clear: that the traffic should be stopped so that children can safely cross the road. The argument against, which was put strongly, is that although children know that they are safe to cross the road from a school bus, the same does not necessarily apply on other occasions when they are crossing the road. The situation is not clear-cut. Nonetheless, there is no question that, where a bus is parked, traffic can be unsighted and the situation is dangerous. We have been fortunate that no serious accident has occurred.
Therefore, I completely endorse Mr Paisley’s call to the Department of Education to fund the successful application forthwith. I trust that the Minister will give us such undertakings today.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I thank Mr Paisley Jnr and Mr Leslie for their contributions.
Garryduff is a controlled primary school and its car parking provision is primarily a matter for the North Eastern Education and Library Board. The board has advised that the school is situated on a dangerous stretch of road, and it acknowledges the need for a bus turning-circle and car parking facilities for parents who leave and collect children at the school. I understand that the board consulted the Roads Service about possible options to address the situation, and the only feasible solution was for the board to acquire additional land.
The board has recently concluded negotiations with the owner of a plot of land adjacent to the school, and its purchase has been agreed — subject to certain conditions set down by the Valuation and Lands Agency. In the light of that, and following close consultation with the Roads Service, the board submitted a scheme to the local planning office. The planners requested some amendments, and those were incorporated in a revised scheme to which formal planning approval is pending.
The education committee of the North Eastern Board has approved in principle the inclusion of the scheme in the board’s minor works programme for this year. Provided the planning approval is confirmed and the conditions for the purchase of the land are met, the project will be brought to tender. I trust that the matter will be speedily expedited, and the understandable concerns of the local community and its representative will be removed.
Adjourned at 6.07 pm.